ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE. WE'RE GOING TO GET
STARTED AS SUBCOMMITTEE. WELCOME
EVERYONE, TO THE ASSEMBLY
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC
MATERIALS COMMITTEE. I'M CALLING
THIS, MEETING TO ORDER AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SERGEANTS, PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS PRIMARY
WITNESSES. TESTIMONY WILL BE
LIMITED TO FOUR MINUTES TOTAL
FOR EACH SIDE. ALL ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES WILL BE LIMITED TO
STATING THEIR NAME, ORGANIZATION
IF THEY REPRESENT ONE, AND THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. I ALSO
WANT TO NOTE THAT WE ARE
ACCEPTING WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION LETTER
PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. WE WILL HEAR 16
MEASURES TODAY, WE TYPICALLY RUN
THE, AGENDA THROUGH FILE ORDER.
WE MAY KIND OF GO OUT OF ORDER
OCCASIONALLY JUST TO MOVE THINGS
ALONG DEPENDING ON THE PRESENCE
OF MEMBERS AND WITNESSES THAT
ARE IN THE ROOM. SO JUST KEEP
THAT IN MIND. IF YOU, SEE US
BOUNCE AROUND A LITTLE BIT,
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET ALL
FOLKS HEARD AND, IN AND OUT
EFFICIENTLY. SO WE WILL, ASK THE
FIRST BILL PRESENTER TO PLEASE
COME FORWARD AND THAT IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FRIEDMAN AND HER
WITNESSES. PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON AND WELCOME.
TO THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH OUR
OFFICE ON THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION. I ACCEPT THE
PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS
SUMMARIZED ON PAGE NINE OF THE
ANALYSIS AS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED. AB 1963 WOULD PROHIBIT
THE USE OF PARAQUAT, A POWERFUL,
WEED KILLER, UNTIL THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION COMPLETES A
REEVALUATION OF PARAQUAT AND
ESTABLISHES APPROPRIATE CONTROLS
TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS OF
PARAQUAT EXPOSURE TO PARAQUAT,
WHICH WAS FIRST MANUFACTURED IN
1962, IS A HIGHLY TOXIC
HERBICIDE OR WEED KILLER USED ON
NUT CROPS LIKE ALMONDS,
PISTACHIOS, WALNUTS, GRAPES, AS
WELL AS COTTON, SOYBEANS, CORN,
AND OTHERS. PARAQUAT IS SPRAYED
TO BURN DOWN OR CLEAR CROP
FIELDS BEFORE PLANTING AND
THROUGHOUT THE GROWING SEASON TO
MANAGE WEEDS BETWEEN CROP ROWS.
MUCH OF THE CHEMICAL ENDS UP IN
SOIL FOR YEARS, BUT IT CAN ALSO
LINGER IN DUST OR DRIFT THROUGH
THE AIR TO NEARBY COMMUNITIES.
THIS POSES AN INCREASED RISK TO
PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING NEAR
FIELDS WHO ARE EXPOSED TO
PARAQUAT. THE PEOPLE MOST AT
RISK OF PARAQUAT EXPOSURE ARE
PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
WHO MIX, LOAD, OR APPLY PARAQUAT
AND ENTER AREAS AFTER THE
CHEMICAL HAS BEEN APPLIED, AS
WELL AS PEOPLE LIVING IN
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES WHO
COULD BE EXPOSED FROM PESTICIDE
DRIFT IN THE AIR OR IN DUST, A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE,
AND THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED FOR
YEARS FROM STUDIES IN PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY FARM WORKERS, HAVE
LINKED PARAQUAT EXPOSURE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PARKINSON'S
DISEASE. PARAQUAT IS BANNED IN
MORE THAN 60 COUNTRIES,
INCLUDING THOSE WITH LARGE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIES LIKE THE
UNITED KINGDOM, WHERE THE
COUNTRY WHERE A LOT OF PARAQUAT
IS MANUFACTURED. CHINA HAS
BANNED ITS USE. BRAZIL AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
CALIFORNIA SHOULD FOLLOW THEIR
LEAD. ALTERNATE TO PARAQUAT USE
EXISTS TODAY. WHY SHOULD WE
CONTINUE TO USE A PEST, AN
HERBICIDE THAT'S BEEN AROUND
SINCE 1962, WHEN WE KNOW WE CAN
DO BETTER? FIRST AND FOREMOST IS
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT OR
IPM. CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION IS
EMPHASIZING THAT WE NEED TO BE
USING LESS PESTICIDES AND
HERBICIDES IN THEIR NEW PLANNING
EFFORT. THE SUSTAINABLE PEST
MANAGEMENT. THEY STATE. IPM IS A
STRATEGY THAT FOCUSES ON LONG
TERME PEST PREVENTION THROUGH
BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS, HABITAT
MANIPULATION AND OTHER
APPROACHES. CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO
BE THE LEADER IN ELIMINATING
HIGHLY TOXIC PESTICIDES AND
HERBICIDES LIKE PARAQUAT.
FURTHERMORE, THE PESTICIDE
INDUSTRY, ALWAYS PROUD OF THEIR
ABILITY TO INNOVATE, SHOULD STEP
FORWARD AND AGREE TO STOP
PRODUCING THIS PRODUCT AND TO
PRODUCE INSTEAD A LESS TOXIC
WEED. KILLERS WITH ME TODAY IS
ALEXIS TEMKIN, A SENIOR TOXIC
TOXICOLOGIST AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP. THE
SPONSOR OF AB 1963. AND I CAN'T
BE MORE PROUD TO HAVE SITTING
NEXT TO ME DOLORES HUERTA, ICON
OF LABOR AND PROTECTING
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND THE
FOUNDER OF THE DOLORES HUERTA
FOUNDATION. AND WITH THAT, I
REQUEST AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WHICHEVER OF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST, I'M
HAPPY TO GO. SURE MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. MY NAME
IS ALEXIS TEMKIN. I HAVE A PHD
IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES, AND I'M
A SENIOR TOXICOLOGIST WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP.
THERE IS ROBUST SCIENCE
CONNECTING PARAQUAT TO
PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND OTHER
SERIOUS HEALTH HARMS. HEALTH
HARMS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY HAS IGNORED.
THE HERBICIDE HAS BOTH ACUTE AND
CHRONIC TOXICITY, MEANING IT CAN
HARM PEOPLE BOTH WHEN THEY'RE
EXPOSED TO A SINGLE DOSE OR
REPEATEDLY OVER TIME TO LOWER
DOSES AND INGESTION OF PARAQUAT.
EVEN JUST A TEASPOON CAN CAUSE
EXTREME RESPIRATORY AND
GASTROINTESTINAL DISTRESS. ORGAN
FAILURE, AND OFTEN LEADS TO
DEATH. THE LINK BETWEEN CHRONIC
EXPOSURE TO PARAQUAT AND
PARKINSON'S DISEASE IN PEOPLE
WAS FIRST IDENTIFIED OVER 35
YEARS AGO, SINCE THEN, MANY
OTHER STUDIES HAVE CONNECTED THE
TWO. RESEARCH, PUBLISHED IN
2011, FOUND FARM WORKERS WHO
SPRAYED PARAQUAT WERE TWO AND A
HALF TIMES MORE LIKELY TO
DEVELOP PARKINSON'S, AND THE
LONGER THEY USED THE HERBICIDE,
THE STRONGER THE ASSOCIATION IN.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, A UCLA STUDY
FOUND THAT PEOPLE LIVING OR
WORKING NEAR THE MOST INTENSE
PARAQUAT APPLICATIONS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY WERE ALSO MORE
LIKELY TO DEVELOP PARKINSON'S
DISEASE. AND A 2019 META
ANALYSIS, THE GOLD STANDARD FOR
SUMMARIZING THE SCIENCE ON A
PARTICULAR TOPIC, FOUND THAT
ACROSS 13 DIFFERENT STUDIES,
OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPOSURE TO PARAQUAT INCREASED
THE RISK OF DEVELOPING
PARKINSON'S BY 64, A CLEAR
INDICATION OF CONCERN. FINALLY,
ANIMAL STUDIES PROVIDE CONCRETE
EVIDENCE FOR HOW PARAQUAT CAN
DAMAGE HUMAN BRAINS. ANIMALS
EXPOSED TO PARAQUAT SHOW CHANGES
IN BEHAVIOR AND OVERALL MOTOR
FUNCTION, A REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER OF DOPAMINE PRODUCING
NEURONS, A REDUCTION IN THE
NUMBER, A HARMFUL MALFUNCTION IN
THE IMPORTANT BRAIN PROTEIN
ALPHA SYNUCLEIN, AND ALL OF
THESE ARE HALLMARKS OF HOW
PARKINSON'S DEVELOPS IN HUMANS.
THE EPA AND PARAQUAT
MANUFACTURERS CLAIM THAT
PARAQUAT CAN BE SAFELY USED WITH
PROPER RESTRICTIONS. HOWEVER,
THE AGENCY OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT RISKS TO FARM WORKERS
PERSIST. DESPITE THESE SAFETY
MEASURES AND VIOLATIONS OF
MISHANDLING HAVE BEEN REPORTED,
EWG RESPECTFULLY URGES THE
COMMITTEE TO PASS AB 1963, IN
ORDER TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S
FARM WORKERS AND ADJACENT
COMMUNITIES FROM THE HARMS OF
PARAQUAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR
HAVING US HERE TODAY, I AM VERY
PROUD TO JOIN ASSEMBLYMEMBER
LAURA FRIEDMAN AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL, I HAVE SPENT MY LIFE. MY
NAME IS DOLORES HUERTA, AND I'M
THE FOUNDER OF THE DOLORES
HUERTA FOUNDATION FOR GRASSROOTS
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING. AND
CO-FOUNDER OF THE UNITED
FARMWORKERS. I HAVE SPENT MY
WHOLE LIFE ADVOCATING,
ADVOCATING FOR BETTER WORKING
CONDITIONS FOR OUR ESSENTIAL
WORKERS, THE FARM WORKERS THAT
FEED US EVERY DAY. AND PARAQUAT
IS ONE OF THE GREATEST
CONTINUING THREATS TO THE HEALTH
OF FARMWORKERS. TODAY, PARAQUAT
IS INNOCUOUSLY NAMED HERBICIDE
THAT HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE
MOST TOXIC HERBICIDES ON THE
MARKET. WORKING IN THE FIELDS
WHERE PARAQUAT IS PRESENT CAN
CAUSE FARMWORKERS THEIR HEALTH,
THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND THEIR LIVES
. PARAQUAT HAS BEEN LINKED TO
PARKINSON'S DISEASE, HEART
DISEASE, KIDNEY FAILURE,
CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA AND CANCER.
I'M FROM KERN COUNTY, WHICH
HAPPENS TO BE THE COUNTY THAT IS
MOST HEAVILY IMPACTED BY
PARAQUAT. 5 MILLION POUNDS OF
PARAQUAT WERE SPRAYED IN
CALIFORNIA BETWEEN 2017 AND
2022. OF THAT, NEARLY 1 MILLION
POUNDS OF PARAQUAT WAS SPRAYED
IN KERN COUNTY ALONE IN LARGELY
LATINO, DISPROPORTIONATELY POOR
AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES,
COMMUNITIES LIKE SHAFTER, WASCO
AND DELANO, STUDIES SHOW THAT
PEOPLE WORKING IN THE FIELDS
WHERE PARAQUAT IS SPRAYED OR
LIVING NEARBY ARE TWICE AS
LIKELY TO DEVELOP PARKINSON'S
DISEASE. OVER 80% OF RESIDENTS
IN CHAPTER, WHICH IS 82% LATINO,
WASCO, 87% LATINO. DELANO, CALIF
76% LATINO. CORCORAN 784%
LATINO. LIVE NEAR THE ANNUAL
SPRAYING OF ALMOST 180,000
POUNDS OF PARAQUAT. WE DO NOT
NEED PARAQUAT. MOST CALIFORNIA
GROWERS DON'T USE PARAQUAT AT
ALL WHEN CLEARING THEIR FIELDS,
NOR SHOULD THE ACCEPTABLE COST
OF OUR FOOD BE PARAQUAT DISEASE.
PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND CANCER.
FOR THE FARMWORKERS, THE
ESSENTIAL WORKERS OF CALIFORNIA
VÀ THAT FEED US HERE AND FEED
THE NATION, THE PEOPLE THAT GROW
AND HARVEST THE FOOD THAT
SUSTAINS US, OR THE RURAL
COMMUNITIES SURROUNDED BY THESE
AGRICULTURAL FIELDS. I CANNOT
REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS
HERBICIDE IS STILL ON THE MARKET
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WORK SO
HARD IN THE FARMWORKERS UNION TO
BAN SO MANY, MANY HERBICIDES AND
PESTICIDES LIKE DDT, PARATHION,
MALATHION, DÍAS AND ON AND ON
AND ON AND TO KNOW THAT THIS THE
PARAQUAT IS STILL WITH US. HEY,
IT'S TIME FOR IT TO GO. OKAY?
AND SO WE WANT YOU, PLEASE, THE
COMMITTEE HERE AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS TO HELP US GET RID OF
THIS TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE
HERBICIDE THAT SO MANY OF OUR
FARMWORKERS, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE
TO GET PARKINSON'S OR CANCER OR
LEUKEMIA OR ANY OF THESE DEADLY
DISEASES. YOU KNOW, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
STOP, AND YOU HAVE THE POWER TO
DO THAT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU TO BOTH WITNESSES. I'M
GOING TO ASK OTHER MEMBERS THAT
ARE HERE WHO WANT TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION,
PLEASE, MY NAME IS CHARLENE
TENBRINK. AND FROM 1993 TO 2000,
I PERSONALLY SPRAYED PARAQUAT ON
PRUNE TREES ON OUR 500 ACRE FARM
IN DIXON, CALIFORNIA, IN AUGUST
OF 2020, I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH
PARKINSON'S DISEASE. MY LIFE IS
NO LONGER BEEN THE SAME. I HAVE
NO IDEA WHAT WE WERE USING IT TO
HELP US WITH. OUR FARM WOULD
CAUSE SUCH DISTRESS TO ME. I
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY HOPE
THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL ACT AND
HELP PREVENT FURTHER HARM TO
FARM WORKERS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THANK YOU. MA'AM, WILL
YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR NAME, JUST
FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, CHARLENE
TENBRINK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND THOSE WHO FOLLOW, IF YOU
JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M NANCY
PAVARINI ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ABBY ALVAREZ WITH THE PESTICIDE
ACTION NETWORK IN SUPPORT JANE
SELLING CALIFORNIANS FOR
PESTICIDE REFORM COALITION,
ADVOCATING FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY.
TULARE COALITION ADVOCATING FOR
PESTICIDE SAFETY, VENTURA IN
SUPPORT, STRONG SUPPORT. REBECCA
MARCUS, ON BEHALF OF THE CENTER
FOR FOOD SAFETY AND SUPPORT.
MARK WELLER, SAFE AG SAFE
SCHOOLS, MONTEREY BAY STRONG
SUPPORT CHAIR AND MEMBERS NATE
SILVA, ON BEHALF OF THE MICHAEL
J. FOX FOUNDATION FOR
PARKINSON'S RESEARCH AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, JONATHAN EVANS ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT, THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, LEAH JONES ON BEHALF
OF A VOICE FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
VANESSA FORSYTHE IN SUPPORT
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS, FAMILIES
ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL TOXIC
SAFETY, GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION
NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND JUSTICE,
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR EARTH
JUSTICE, AND ALSO NORTH COUNTY
CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE. THANK
YOU. JIM GONZALEZ, CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. SEEING NO ONE ELSE,
I'LL ASK THE TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES THAT WILL BE
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. YOU'LL HAVE A
TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES TO PROVIDE
YOUR TESTIMONY, AND, ABOUT
MIDWAY THROUGH, I'LL ASK THAT
THOSE WHO WILL BE DOING A ME TOO
CAN LINE UP, JUST TO KIND OF GET
THINGS GOING, PLEASE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TAYLOR OCEAN, ON BEHALF
OF WESTERN PLANT HEALTH AND A
COALITION TO EXPRESS OUR
REGRETFUL OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION ON SIX, 1963, I WANT TO
BE CLEAR. ENSURING AGRICULTURAL
WORKFORCE AND OUR COMMUNITIES
ARE PROTECTED IS PARAMOUNT,
PARAQUAT HAS BEEN USED WIDELY
FOR DECADES AND HAS BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF MORE THAN 1200 SAFETY
STUDIES SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED
BY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AROUND
THE WORLD, DEMONSTRATING ITS
SAFETY AND SAFE USE. U.S. EPA
HAS PUT IN PLACE MAJOR NEW
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF
PARAQUAT IN 2019 AND 2020 TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT ACCIDENT
INGESTION OF PARAQUAT ILLEGALLY
TRANSFERRED FROM ITS CONTAINER
IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE.
ANYONE USING PARAQUAT NEEDS TO
BE A CERTIFIED APPLICATOR WITH
NO ALLOWANCE FOR UNCERTIFIED
APPLICATORS TO USE THE PRODUCT
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR, THEY MUST
TAKE PARAQUAT SAFETY SPECIFIC
TRAINING EVERY THREE YEARS, AND
CONTAINERS MUST BE USED IN A
CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM TO PREVENT
ILLEGAL TRANSFERS. IN ADDITION,
PARAQUAT IS A RESTRICTED USE
MATERIAL IN CALIFORNIA WHICH
REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM THE
COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
COMMISSIONER. ALONG WITH THE
LICENSING OBLIGATIONS I NOTED
AND ADVANCED NOTICE PRIOR TO
USE. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE
LABOR REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING
RESTRICTED REENTRY PERIODS, PPE
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATORS,
AND OTHER ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.
THESE LIMITATIONS, IN ADDITION
TO THE LIMITS ON THE LABEL THAT
I NOTED OF HOW MUCH TO APPLY,
WHERE AND HOW APPLICATION
OCCURS, THE PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENTS MAKE PARAQUAT AMONG
ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTED
PRODUCTS IN THE WORLD, AND IN
CALIFORNIA. BILL PROPONENTS CITE
INDIVIDUAL STUDIES ALLEGING
PARKINSON DISEASE RESULTING FROM
PARAQUAT USE. I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR, US EPA HAS UNDERTAKEN A
REVIEW OF LABORATORY AND
EPIDEMIOLOGIC EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
STUDIES AND REACHED A VERY
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, ACCORDING
TO THE 2024 US EPA REVIEW, IT
CITED PARAQUAT, PARKINSON'S
DISEASE IS NOT AN EXPECTED
RESULT OF THE PESTICIDAL USE OF
PARAQUAT. AFTER A THOROUGH
REVIEW OF RELEVANT STUDIES, THE
AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT THE WEIGHT
OF EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO
LINK PARAQUAT EXPOSURE FROM
PESTICIDAL USE IN IN THE UNITED
STATES TO PRODUCTS IN HUMANS AND
IN ANIMALS. THIS CONCLUSION IS
SUPPORTED BY, AMONG MANY THINGS,
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH
SPONSORED STUDY OF 66,000 PEST
APPLICATORS AND THEIR SPOUSES,
WHICH WHICH WHICH WENT ON FOR 25
YEARS. ADDITIONALLY, LAST WEEK,
A FEDERAL JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS EXPERT ATTEMPT TO
LINK PARAQUAT TO PARKINSON'S
USED A METHODOLOGY THAT WAS
UNCLEAR, INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED,
NOT REPLICABLE, AND AT TIMES
TRANSPARENTLY REVERSE
ENGINEERED. THE COURT OPINION
ALSO NOTED THAT PARKINSON THAT
PARAQUAT PARKINSON'S CAUSAL
THEORY HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED OR
INDEPENDENTLY VALIDATED IN ANY
PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC
ANALYSIS, TO BE CLEAR, THE
COUNTRIES THAT THE AUTHOR NOTED
HAVE BANNED PARAQUAT BECAUSE OF
CONCERNS OF DELIBERATE INGESTION
FOR SELF HARM PURPOSES, SO
UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS,
1963 IS STILL, FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, AN UNSCIENTIFIC BAN
THAT PUTS THE LEGISLATURE IN THE
DRIVER'S SEAT IN MAKING
DECISIONS ABOUT PRODUCT SAFETY,
THE NEED FOR REEVALUATION, AND
NEW RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY RESULT
UP TO INCLUDING CANCELLATION
DEPENDS ON EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF
PRODUCT USE AND SAFETY. AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO THE BAN, WE WOULD
ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
REQUIRE DPR TO CONDUCT
ADDITIONAL REVIEWS WITHIN A
SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD, THAT
PROCESS BEGAN WITH A COMMENT AND
A PETITION THAT WAS PROVIDED,
AND THEN URGE DPR TO TAKE NEXT
STEPS IF THEY ARE SCIENTIFICALLY
WARRANTED. WITHOUT SUCH
AMENDMENTS, WE RESPECTFULLY
OFFER OUR OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
GARCIA. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS CHRIS
MCLAUGHLIN. HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COTTON GINNERS
AND GROWERS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL
AS THE WESTERN AGRICULTURAL
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, PARAQUAT
IS A NECESSARY CHEMISTRY FOR OUR
GROWERS OF VARIOUS COMMODITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. IN COTTON,
PARAQUAT IS USED AS A DESICCANT,
AND MATURED COTTON PLANTS
DEFOLIATING THE CROP TO ENSURE
THAT HARVESTING AND PROCESSING
IS MORE EFFICIENT THROUGHOUT THE
SEASON. THE PRODUCT PROVIDES
BROAD SPECTRUM COVERAGE FOR
KNOCKING DOWN WEEDS IN BOTH
PREPLANT COTTON BEDS, AS WELL AS
TREE NUT ORCHARDS. IN BOTH
SCENARIOS, PARAQUAT IS ONE OF
THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOLS AT
PROVIDING THOSE CONTROLS AND
DESIRED OUTCOMES. IN COMPARISON
TO PARAQUAT, SIMILAR CHEMISTRIES
CAN INCUR A LONGER PRE-HARVEST
INTERVAL ALLOWANCE BACK INTO THE
FIELD AFTER APPLICATION BEFORE
THE CROP CAN BE HARVESTED, OR
CAN IMPACT A GROWER THROUGH
PLANT BACK RESTRICTIONS, WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY A DELAY IN THE
ABILITY TO PLANT A COMMODITY
ONCE THE ONCE THE APPLICATION
HAS BEEN MADE. ADDITIONALLY,
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT DRIFT
ASSOCIATED WITH PARAQUAT CAN BE
LESS DETRIMENTAL THAN
ALTERNATIVE CHEMISTRIES. AND
LASTLY, WITH THE USE OF
ALTERNATIVE CHEMISTRIES, PLANTS
ACTUALLY DEVELOP A RESISTANCE TO
APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE OTHER
CHEMISTRIES THAT ARE UTILIZED.
THE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES
OUTSIDE OF CHEMICAL CONTROL. THE
LIST OF NON-CHEMICAL CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES PROVIDES A RATHER
IRONIC PERSPECTIVE ON FARMING
PRACTICES AND THE REGULATORY
OBJECTIVES MADE BY THE STATE.
ONE ALTERNATIVE TO PARAQUAT IS
THE USE OF STEAM, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE A LARGE COMBUSTION
ENGINE, AS WELL AS THE USE OF A
LOT OF WATER TO BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE WEEDS IN THE FIELD,
THE PRACTICE. THIS PRACTICE ALSO
RESULTS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF
SOIL MICROBES, WHICH IS ALSO
ANOTHER, POINT PROMOTED BY THE
STATE THROUGH OTHER REGULATORY
PROGRAMS. A SECOND ALTERNATIVE
IS THE PRACTICE OF USING
LIVESTOCK TO GRAZE ORCHARDS IN
THE FIELDS. BUT THIS SOLUTION
HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO FOOD
SAFETY AND THE EFFICACY AND
PRACTICES UTILIZED BY FARMERS.
THE LAST ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED
IN THE PRACTICE IS DISKING, A
FIELD TO REMOVE OTHER ORGANIC
MATERIAL FROM PLANTING BEDS, BUT
THIS SUGGESTION GOES AGAINST THE
STATE EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE LOW
TO NO TILL PRACTICES WITHIN THE
STATE'S PRODUCTION. AGRICULTURE.
WE STRONGLY ASK THAT YOU OPPOSE
AB 1963. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK
THOSE WHO WANT TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. NAME AN
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION.
YES GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, KIRK WILBER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION OPPOSED. GOOD
AFTERNOON. BRENDA BASS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. GOOD
AFTERNOON, AARON NORWOOD, ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLMAN ALLIANCE,
ALSO OPPOSED. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
DANNY MERKLEY WITH THE GLAUCO
GROUP ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF WINE GRAPE
GROWERS, OPPOSED. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS TRICIA GERINGER WITH
AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
. DEAN TALLEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED CHRIS
REARDON WITH THE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU. RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
MARGIE LEE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. ONE Kò ON BEHALF OF
THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION, MUCH
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, I'M GOING TO
BRING THE, MATTER BACK TO THE
DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE
AUTHOR, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE
WITNESSES, BOTH IN FAVOR, PLEASE
? OR IN OPPOSITION? I DO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR, YOU'VE BEEN A
GREAT LEADER. WHEN IT COMES TO
PROVIDING BETTER OPTIONS.
WHENEVER WE'RE LOOKING AT TAKING
CARE OF ISSUES, BUT I WANT TO
CONGRATULATE YOU MOST ESPECIALLY
FOR THE WITNESS YOU BROUGHT. I
DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY WHO
HAS FOUGHT MORE FOR OUR FARM
WORKERS THAN THE LARA HUERTA. I
DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY WHO
HAS EVER LOOKED AT AND LIVED THE
EXPERIENCES OF OUR FARM WORKERS,
AS YOU HAVE, AND I DON'T THINK
FARM WORKERS HAVE ANYBODY WHO
HAS A STRONGER VOICE THAN YOUR
VOICE. AND I THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE, WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES, I
THINK THAT, AND IT'S LISTED IN
THE ANALYSIS ABOUT ALTERNATIVES
AND OUR OPPOSITION TALKED ABOUT
THOSE WHEN WE KNOW THAT A
PARTICULAR HERBICIDE, HAS
FACTORS THAT CAN CAUSE GREAT
HARM AND IF INGESTED, CAN CAUSE
DEATH, THEN I THINK IT IT IT IS
OUR DUTY TO FIND ALTERNATIVES.
AND, IT SOMETIMES WE SAY THAT
THEY'RE TOO EXPENSIVE. I MEAN,
WE ALL HAVE BILLS WHERE, WHERE
WE'RE TOLD IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO
TRY THE OTHER WAY WHEN WE DON'T
KNOW BETTER, THEN WE CAN'T DO
BETTER. BUT ONCE WE KNOW BETTER,
WE'VE GOT TO. WE'VE GOT TO DO
BETTER, I THINK THAT THE AS WAS
NOTED IN THE, THE ANALYSIS,
PARAQUAT IS SOMETHING THAT
CERTAINLY WE DON'T WANT A HUMAN
TO INGEST IT, AND THERE ARE
MEASURES THAT ARE TAKEN TO MAKE
SURE THAT, THAT THERE ISN'T
DIRECT CONTACT. WE KNOW THAT IT
IT ISN'T CAN'T BE USED BY IN
HOUSEHOLDS, BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A
POWERFUL HERBICIDE AND YOU HAVE
TO BE REGISTERED. THERE ARE SO
MANY THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
DONE, BUT IN THE END, OUR FARM
WORKERS ARE STILL EXPOSED.
THERE'S NO WAY TO APPLY THE
PARAQUAT, KNOWING OF ITS DANGER
WITHOUT ACCEPTS THAT THERE IS
STILL THE DANGER TO OUR FARM
WORKERS. AND WE, YOU KNOW, OUR
FARM WORKERS ARE THE ONES THAT
PROVIDE THE FRONTLINE WORKERS,
AS WAS MENTIONED. AND THERE'S SO
MUCH MORE WE NEED TO DO TO
PROTECT IT BECAUSE WE KNOW
BETTER, I, I APPRECIATE ONCE
AGAIN THAT THE AUTHORS BROUGHT
THIS FORWARD, THE, THE
ALTERNATIVES. I DO WANT TO ASK,
YOU SPOKE ABOUT THEM BRIEFLY,
AND IT, WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT
THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE THAT THAT
ARE KNOWN TO HELP WITH THE TO BE
USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
PARAQUAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE
I'M SORRY. THROUGH THE CHAIR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THEY'RE ALL THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS TO
BE USED IN LIEU OF PARAQUAT. BUT
I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT MY
COLLEAGUE NOTED WAS THAT PLANTS
BREED RESISTANCE. AND ESPECIALLY
THIS LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE BEEN
SEEING MORE AND MORE LEGISLATIVE
REMOVALS OF THE TYPE OF
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS THAT WE
NEED, WHERE CONVERSELY, WE'RE
NOT SEEING AN EXPEDITED PROCESS
TO ONBOARD THE ALTERNATIVE
PRODUCTS, SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS,
BIOLOGICALS, ORGANICS THAT WE
SHOULD BE USING OR WE COULD BE
USING INSTEAD OF PARAQUAT. AND
THEN I THINK MY COLLEAGUE NOTED
THE TRADE OFFS, THE OPPORTUNITY
COSTS OF USING NON-CHEMICAL
ALTERNATIVES TO, TO WEED
MANAGEMENT AND EVERYTHING DOES
HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY COST.
CERTAINLY WE PUT FARMWORKER
HEALTH PARAMOUNT IN A PART OF
THAT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TRUST
IN DPR AND US EPA SYSTEM, AND SO
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
CHALLENGING THOSE AGENCIES TO DO
ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND REPORT
BACK MAINTAINS THE CREDIBILITY
OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS THAT
WE ALL BUY INTO, AND HAS DONE SO
IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS
EMPLOYEES. SO WE DON'T DISAGREE.
I THINK, WITH YOUR QUESTION
ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF FINDING
ALTERNATIVES AT THIS POINT. WE
DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A SYSTEM
THAT FACILITATES THAT MOST
EXPEDITIOUSLY. THANK YOU. I
FOLLOW UP TO THAT. WHAT DOES THE
PROCESS LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF
GETTING SOME OF THESE
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS, ON THE
MARKET? GIVE US A COUPLE OF
EXAMPLES OF ON THE FROM START TO
FINISH TO GET THESE ON THE
MARKET. SO I WANT TO START BY
SAYING, AND I AND I, I THINK ON
BEHALF OF THE REGISTRANTS,
PESTICIDE REGISTRANTS IN
CALIFORNIA, BOTH FOR AGRICULTURE
AND NON-AGRICULTURE, WE HEAR THE
CALL TO ACTION, WE SPEND
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY
YEAR IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO IDENTIFY EITHER
REFORMULATIONS OR NEW ACTIVE
INGREDIENTS THAT WE CAN USE TO
REPLACE LEGACY PRODUCTS. IT IS
IN THE INDUSTRY'S BEST INTEREST
TO DIVERSIFY AND IMPROVE THE
SAFETY EXPERIENCE THAT'S WHY YOU
SEE A WHOLE NEW HOST OF PRODUCTS
COMING ONLINE WHEN THEY DO HAVE
A FORMULATION THAT'S PROVEN
EFFECTIVE AFTER EFFICACY TESTS
AND LOCAL TRIALS, THEY SUBMIT
ALL OF THAT DATA TO US. EPA US,
EPA DOES HEALTH ASSESSMENTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS. THEY REVIEW THE
LABEL CONDITIONS YOU SUBMIT THAT
BASED ON WHICH PRODUCTS YOU CAN
APPLY IT TO. SO THE HOST
MATERIAL ULTIMATELY, THE
DEPARTMENT MAKES A DECISION AT
THE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO
APPROVE THAT PRODUCT FOR USE
THOSE PRODUCTS. ONCE APPROVED BY
US EPA IN THE AGRICULTURAL
SETTING ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL
OTHER 49 STATES. THEY'RE NOT
AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA. SO WHAT
WE HAVE THEN IS PESTICIDES. COME
TO CALIFORNIA TO BE REGISTERED
FOR USE. THESE ARE ORGANIC
BIOLOGICAL SYNTHETICS. SO IT'S
THE ENTIRE LITANY SPECTRUM OF
PESTICIDES IN CALIFORNIA, THE
AVERAGE OR THE. AT ONE POINT,
DPR RELEASED THAT IT TAKES UP TO
FIVE YEARS FOR AN AGRICULTURAL
PESTICIDE TO BE REGISTERED FOR
USE. SO CALIFORNIA FARMERS ARE
ALREADY FIVE YEARS BEHIND WHERE
EVERY OTHER STATE IS AT. AND
HAVING ACCESS TO THESE PRODUCTS,
WHICH IS A MAJOR CONCERN, WHICH
IS WHY YOU HEAR SUCH A
REACTIONARY RESPONSE WHEN THIS
COMMITTEE HEARS ONE OFF BANS,
BECAUSE WE SEE BANS HAPPEN YEAR
OVER YEAR WITHOUT THE EXPEDIENCY
IN REPLACEMENT. AND THEN ONCE
THOSE PRODUCTS ARE APPROVED FOR
USE IN CALIFORNIA, THEY DICTATE
ALL THE CONDITIONS OF LABEL
USES. AND THEN THERE'S A
CONTINUOUS REVIEW PROCESS TO
REVIEW SAFETY, WHICH CAN LEAD TO
MORE MITIGATIONS OR
CANCELLATIONS. AND THEN AT ANY
POINT IN TIME, DATA CAN BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT BOTH
AT US EPA AND CDCR TO SET
ADDITIONAL LABEL RESTRICTIONS,
PUT THE PESTICIDE PRODUCT INTO
REEVALUATION. SO WE BELIEVE
THERE'S A VERY ROBUST PROCESS,
AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T FEEL
AS THOUGH THERE'S A
RESPONSIVENESS TO THE USER
COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE THE VENUE
THAT I THINK YOU HAD SUGGESTED
IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE ROUTE.
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A ATTEMPT TO
TRY TO MOVE THAT PROCESS A
LITTLE MORE EXPEDIENT, WITHOUT
COMPROMISING THE RESEARCH AND
SCIENTIFIC ASPECT OF IT? AND IF
SO, WHAT HAS THAT LOOKED LIKE?
RIGHT SO, WELL, THERE ARE A
COUPLE THINGS. THERE'S LOTS OF
THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE TO
IMPROVE THE PROCESS. AND I THINK
WE'LL BE HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION LATER TODAY AS
WELL, ONE THING I WILL NOTE THAT
IS A MINOR IMPROVEMENT JUST TO
SHOW YOU WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS
OF ARCHAIC NESS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION, THEY OPERATE
REGISTRATIONS ON A PAPER BASED
SYSTEM. SO YOU LITERALLY HAVE
STACKS OF PAPER YOU SUBMIT TO
THE DEPARTMENT AGENT TO REVIEW
FOR APPROVAL. OVER THE LAST FOUR
YEARS, THE REGISTRANT COMMUNITY
HAS PAID FOR AN ELECTRONIC
VERSION OF THAT SUBMISSION
PROCESS THAT HAS NOT. IT'S
CALLED CAL PEST THAT HAS NOT
BEEN STOOD UP YET AFTER YEARS
AND YEARS OF FUNDING. SO THAT'S
JUST NIBBLING AROUND THE EDGES
OF HOW TO IMPROVE THAT PROCESS.
BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO MORE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN. AND WE WILL HAVE
THAT DISCUSSION. LATER THIS
AFTERNOON, THE REASON I ASK THE
QUESTION IS, I THINK, FOR US TO
THINK ABOUT IF MOVING IN THIS
DIRECTION. RIGHT, AS IT RELATES
TO BANNING CERTAIN HERBICIDES
AND OTHER CHEMICALS, THAT WE
SHOULD ALSO KIND OF THINK IN
PARALLEL HOW WE'RE ABLE TO BE
ABLE TO SUBSTITUTE THEM AS
QUICKLY AS WE'RE ASKING TO TAKE
THESE OFF THE MARKET. AND SO I'M
LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT
DISCUSSION AND MANY MORE ON THIS
SUBJECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
LOOKING TO MY LEFT OR TO THE
RIGHT, YES. JUST TO FOLLOW UP AT
PAGE FIVE OF THE ANALYSIS ON
ALTERNATIVES TO PARAQUAT, IT
DOES SAY THAT THERE ARE, OVER
1.25 MILLION FARMERS AND LOW AND
MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES THAT
SUCCESSFULLY PRODUCE A RANGE OF
CROPS USING ALTERNATIVE METHODS,
ALTERNATIVE, APPROACHES OTHER
THAN PARAQUAT, WHY AREN'T WE
ABLE TO DO IT HERE? WELL, I
GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT
THOSE COUNTRIES ALSO DON'T HAVE
AS ROBUST OF A REVIEW SYSTEM AS
US EPA AND CALIFORNIA HAS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION. SO THEY MAY BE USING
SOMETHING ALTERNATIVE TO
PARAQUAT, BUT IT MAY HAVE HIGHER
CHRONIC OR ACUTE TOXICITY. THERE
COULD BE OTHER ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN HEALTH
WILDLIFE IMPACTS THAT AREN'T
BEING ACCOUNTED FOR. I ALSO WANT
TO NOTE, CALIFORNIA FARMS ON A
SIGNIFICANT SCALE, SIGNIFICANT,
LARGER THAN SOME OF THE
COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOTED THERE.
WE HAVE 400 DIFFERENT
COMMODITIES. WE'VE GOT VAST
PRODUCTION REGIONS AND EVER
CHANGING LAND USE PATTERNS,
WHICH INVITES SIGNIFICANT PESTS.
SO WE DO HAVE A DIFFERENT SCALE
THAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, EVEN
FROM A STATE TO A COUNTRY LEVEL.
AND THEN, AS I SAID, THE
IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT IS TO USE THE
DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE IN A IN A, AN EVER
CHANGING FORMULA. SO YOU DON'T
BREED THOSE RESISTANCE AS WELL.
AND YOU'RE USING THE LEAST
AMOUNT OF PRODUCT AS POSSIBLE,
UNDER THE GUISE OF A CERTIFIED
APPLICATOR AND A PEST CONTROL
ADVISOR. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT
THAT'S NECESSARILY IN THE
ANALYSIS. THE WHOLE STORY OF AN
APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. I
DO WANT TO SAY THAT IN WHAT THE
WORK THAT I HAVE DONE, FOR
ESPECIALLY FOR THE INDUSTRY IN
MY AREA, I DO KNOW THE WORK THAT
YOU DO. YOU DO SO MUCH TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT ALTERNATIVES. IN A
CASE LIKE THIS, THOUGH, I'M
ABSOLUTELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE,
THE HEALTH OF THOSE WHO ARE THAT
ARE BEING EXPOSED TO IT RIGHT AT
THIS MOMENT AND TRYING TO FIND
WAYS TO PROTECT THEM, SO I THANK
YOU, BUT, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
I'LL JUST KIND OF ELABORATE ON
THIS, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT
BACK, MAYBE CLOSING COMMENTS I
APPRECIATE WHEN WE CAN MAKE
REFERENCE TO A PLACE WHERE
THERE'S, THE EXAMPLE THAT
THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE. I THINK
WHAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY FROM THIS
CONVERSATION IS THAT THERE MAY
BE AN ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT, BUT
THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY GETTING
IT CERTIFIED IS NOT GOING TO BE
APPLES TO APPLES. RIGHT. AND SO
I THINK THAT'S WHAT KIND OF I
CAN TAKE AWAY FROM THIS
DISCUSSION AND THAT WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS
LOOK LIKE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
PUT THESE ALTERNATIVES ON THE
MARKET TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AS
QUICKLY AS WE'RE WANTING TO TAKE
THIS OFF AND PUT THOSE
ALTERNATIVES ON FOR OUR FARMERS
AND INDUSTRY TO BE ABLE TO
UTILIZE THEM. SO LOOK FORWARD TO
THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION. I
DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. I'LL GIVE IT BACK TO
THE AUTHOR IF YOU WANT TO CLOSE
THE BILL. DOES HAVE A Dð PASS,
AS AMENDED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. EVANS. THANK
YOU. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE
QUESTIONS AND THE DISCUSSION. I
APPRECIATE THE VIEWPOINTS OF THE
OPPOSITION AS WELL, CERTAINLY WE
UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION THAT
THEY'RE IN. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR FARMS CAN SUCCEED AS
WELL, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A 2019
META STUDY SHOWING OF 13 STUDIES
SHOWING A STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION WHERE
PEOPLE EXPOSED TO PARAQUAT ARE
1.64 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO
DEVELOP PARKINSON'S DISEASE,
THAT'S A HUGE, HUGE INCREASE IN
PEOPLE'S RISK WHEN WE HAVE A
CHEMICAL THAT WE KNOW IS SO
TOXIC THAT, AS OUTLINED, YOU
HAVE TO GO THROUGH A NUMBER OF
STEPS TO BE ABLE TO USE IT. AND
WE HAVE AT THIS POINT, CONSTANT
VIOLATIONS THAT WE COULD CITE
WHERE PEOPLE WERE NOT USING THE
PRODUCT CORRECTLY AND WHERE
THERE'S SO MUCH POTENTIAL FOR
INJURY AND FOR DEATH WHEN YOU
HAVE A CHEMICAL THAT'S NOT
ALLOWED BY THE EPA TO BE USED ON
GOLF COURSES, NOT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO TAKE
CARE OF GOLF COURSES ARE
INCAPABLE OF LEARNING HOW TO
PROPERLY USE PARAQUAT, BUT
BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY DON'T WANT
THE PARAQUAT EXPOSURE FOR
GOLFERS AND YET THEY'RE SAYING
IT'S OKAY TO EXPOSE FARM WORKERS
TO THE SAME CHEMICAL. THERE'S A
PROBLEM. SO WE HAVE AMENDED THE
BILL TO MAKE IT NOT A COMPLETE
BAN, BUT A MORATORIUM. WHILE WE
DO LOOK AT THE PRODUCT, AND I
UNDERSTAND THE OPPONENTS WOULD
MUCH RATHER SAY, LET'S JUST KEEP
THINGS AS THEY ARE UNTIL WE HAVE
MORE OF THAT DATA. BUT I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IT'S WORTH RISKING
PEOPLE'S LIVES AND SAFETY TO DO
THAT FOR THE NEXT NUMBER OF
YEARS, SO, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY
SYMPATHIZE AND UNDERSTAND.
THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE FOOD
FOR US. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AT
THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE ALSO
HAVE AN OBLIGATION WHEN WE SEE
SUCH A HIGH RISK TO SOMETHING
THAT'S SO DEADLY AS PARKINSON'S
TO, TO, TO DEFAULT INTO THE
POSITION OF BEING MORE
PROTECTIVE. SO I WANT TO THANK
MY WITNESSES, PARTICULARLY BOTH
OF YOU. BUT MAY I SAY, I'VE BEEN
HERE. THIS IS MY LAST YEAR IN
THE LEGISLATURE. I THINK THAT
THIS IS MY PROUDEST MOMENT AS AN
AUTHOR, TO BE SITTING NEXT TO
DOLORES HUERTA. SO THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR HONORING US WITH YOUR
PRESENCE AND FOR ALL OF YOUR
WORK. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION.
I'LL SECOND. AND, THIS DOES
AGAIN HAVE A DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL
WAIT FOR AN ACTION TO BE TAKEN,
MR. FRIEDMAN, I THINK YOU HAVE A
SECOND, BILL, IF YOU WANT TO
PRESENT OTHERWISE, WE HAVE AN
EAGER AUTHOR RIGHT BEHIND YOU TO
GO. BILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
NICE MOMENT TO GO OUT ON, BUT
I'M GOING TO STAY FOR THE SECOND
YOU CAN. WE HAVE OTHER FOLKS WHO
WANT TO PRESENT? NO THOUGH I'M
VERY PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2916,
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I WANT
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF
AGAIN FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK
AND TIME OVER THE PAST COUPLE
WEEKS ON THIS ISSUE, CALIFORNIA
HAS EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
FOAM FILLED DOCKS WHEN THEY
BECOME DAMAGED OR WATERLOGGED.
AND MANY OF US HAVE SEEN,
UNFORTUNATELY, THESE PLASTIC
PIECES FLOATING AROUND IN OUR
WATERWAYS AND THEY BREAK DOWN.
THEY END UP BEING EATEN BY
MARINE LIFE BECAUSE THEY'RE
CONFUSED AS FOOD. AND THEY CAN
CAUSE ALL KINDS OF HEALTH
IMPACTS, INCLUDING DEATHS. FOR
THESE ORGANISMS, THE RESULT IS
NOT ONLY HARM TO WILDLIFE, BUT
ALSO POLLUTION OF OUR WATERWAYS
AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE CLEANUP
EFFORTS FOR LITTLE TEENY BITS OF
STYROFOAM FLOATING AROUND IN
WATER, AS SEEN EARLIER THIS YEAR
ON THE SHORES OF LAKE TAHOE.
FOLLOWING A MAJOR STORM EVENT
THAT RESULTED IN HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF MICROPLASTICS
LEACHING FROM DAMAGED FLOATING
DOCKS, THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST
OF PLASTIC CLEANUP AND CONTROL
IN CALIFORNIA WAS MORE THAN $428
MILLION, AS OF 2015, AB 2916
PROHIBITS ON OR AFTER JANUARY
1ST, 2026, THE SALE,
DISTRIBUTION, OR INSTALLATION OF
AN OVERWATER STRUCTURE BLOCK OR
FLOAT THAT CONTAINS EXPANDED
POLYSTYRENE, OFTEN REFERRED TO
AS STYROFOAM OR OTHER PLASTIC
FOAM, UNLESS IT IS FULLY
ENCLOSED AND CONTAINED IN A
SHELL MADE OF ALUMINUM,
CONCRETE, STEEL, OR PLASTIC WITH
A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 0.15IN.
THIS IS NOT REQUIRING A LOT. AB
2916 ALSO GIVES AUTHORITY TO THE
STATE WATER BOARD TO ADOPT RULES
TO IMPLEMENT, ADMINISTER AND
ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL AND TO MAINTAIN AND REVISE
THE LIST OF MATERIALS APPROVED
FOR USE. SEVERAL STATES HAVE
ALREADY TAKEN SIMILAR ACTION,
INCLUDING OREGON, TENNESSEE, AND
MOST RECENTLY IN WASHINGTON.
WE'VE HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION
CONCERNS AROUND CLARIFYING THAT
EXISTING EQUIPMENT WILL BE
GRANDFATHERED AND THAT THE
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT
UNNECESSARILY TRIGGERED BY
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. WE'RE ALSO
IN THE PROCESS OF FOLLOWING UP
WITH THE STATE WATER BOARD TO
DISCUSS HOW ENFORCEMENT AND WILL
HAPPEN, AND TO PROVIDE
DEFINITIONS TO THE TERMS AND
PRINT FOR ADDING CLARITY. WE'RE
COMMITTED TO RESOLVING THESE
CONCERNS SHOULD THE BILL GET OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY. CALIFORNIA
NEEDS PROTECTIVE MEASURES LIKE
THIS BILL TO KEEP WILDLIFE AND
WATERWAYS SAFE FROM THE HARMFUL
IMPACTS OF MICROPLASTIC
POLLUTION. THIS ONE HAS AN EASY
SOLUTION. LET'S DO IT ALREADY
TESTIFYING AND SUPPORT THIS
AFTERNOON IS MIHO LEGARE, A
PLASTIC POLLUTION MANAGER WITH
THE SURF. THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON
, CHAIR GARCIA AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS MIHO LEGARE, AND I'M THE
PLASTIC POLLUTION POLICY MANAGER
WITH THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 2916 AIMS TO
PROACTIVELY REDUCE PLASTIC FOAM
POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA'S WATERS
AND ENVIRONMENT BY PROHIBITING
OVERWATER STRUCTURES, BLOCKS AND
FLOATS MADE FROM EXPANDED
POLYSTYRENE AND OTHER PLASTIC
FOAM. UNLESS THE FOAM IS
ENCAPSULATED. THE BILL FOCUSES
ON NEW STRUCTURES AND FUTURE
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF
EXISTING STRUCTURE, SO THIS BILL
MINIMIZES COST TO THE STATE BY
PHASING OUT EXISTING DEVICES
WHILE REDUCING CLEANUP COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH PLASTIC FOAM
POLLUTION. IN GENERAL, PLASTIC
POSES A THREAT TO OUR
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITIES, AND
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECONOMY FOR
THEIR FROM THEIR ORIGIN TO END
OF LIFE. IT'S A PETROLEUM BASED
PRODUCT AND RELEASES CARBON
EMISSIONS AND OTHER TOXIC
CHEMICALS WHEN CREATED, THIS
PLASTIC POLLUTION ISSUE IS SO
HUGE THAT RIGHT NOW THERE'S A
GLOBAL PLASTICS TREATY BEING
NEGOTIATED IN OTTAWA, CANADA.
AND SO IT JUST RAISES THE SCALE
OF THIS PROBLEM AND IN
PARTICULAR, EXPANDED
POLYSTYRENE, OFTEN REFERRED TO
AS STYROFOAM, IS THE MOST COMMON
TYPE OF PLASTIC FOAM USED IN
DOCKS AND OTHER FLOATING
STRUCTURES. THIS FOAM EASILY
BREAKS DOWN FROM COLLISIONS AND
WEATHERING OVER TIME WHEN
EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS. THE
RESULT IN TINY PLASTIC PIECES,
INCLUDING MICROPLASTICS THAT
POLLUTE OUR BEACHES, THE OCEAN
AND OTHER WATERWAYS. THESE FOAM
PIECES ARE NOT ONLY SMALL, BUT
REALLY LIGHT, AS THEY'RE
COMPOSED OF ABOUT 95% AIR AND
ARE EASILY SWEPT AWAY BY WIND
AND OTHER ELEMENTS. FURTHERMORE,
POLYSTYRENE CAN THREATEN PUBLIC
HEALTH. THE STYRENE MONOMER, THE
BUILDING BLOCKS OF POLYSTYRENE,
IS REASONABLY ANTICIPATED TO BE
A HUMAN CARCINOGEN. LONG TIME
EXPOSURE TO STYRENE AND HUMAN
RESULTS AND EFFECTS ON THE HAS
EFFECTS ON THE CENTRAL NERVOUS
SYSTEM, SUCH AS A HEADACHE,
FATIGUE, WEAKNESS, DEPRESSION,
CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
DYSFUNCTION, HEARING LOSS, AND
PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY. SINCE
2013, INTERNATIONAL COASTAL
CLEANUP VOLUNTEERS IN CALIFORNIA
HAVE REMOVED OVER 700,000 TINY
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE PIECES, SO
THESE ARE LESS THAN 2.5CM IN
SIZE AND OVER 700,000 OTHER FOAM
FOODWARE AND PACKAGING ITEMS.
FOAM FRAGMENTS ARE CONTINUOUSLY
ONE OF THE TOP TEN ITEMS FOUND
AT SURFRIDER BEACH CLEANUPS YEAR
AFTER YEAR. WE ALSO SEE
INCREASED FOAM POLLUTION DURING
AND AFTER STORM EVENTS EARLIER
THIS YEAR, AN ESTIMATED OVER
100,000 TINY FOAM BEADS LITTERED
LAKE TAHOE THAT LOOK LIKE SNOW.
AFTER A FOAM DOT CAME INTO
CONTACT WITH THE BOAT. SO
VOLUNTEERS SPENT HUNDREDS OF
HOURS COLLECTIVELY CLEANING UP
THEIR LOVE BEACHES, USING PASTA
STRAINERS AND SEEDS. JUST
GETTING REALLY CREATIVE. YOU
KNOW, USING THEIR OWN SHOP BAGS.
BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW HARD IT
IS TO CLEAN IT UP ONCE IT'S OUT
IN THE ENVIRONMENT. THINK ABOUT
IT. MIXING WITH SNOW AND ONCE
THE SNOW MELTS, IT GETS IN THE
SAND. SO VIRTUALLY VERY SMALL
PIECES. SO IT'S A COMMON SENSE
SOLUTION TO START CLEANING IT UP
AT THE SOURCE. PROACTIVE
MEASURES LIKE AB 2916 THAT
PREVENT MICROPLASTIC FROM
ENTERING THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE
MOST COST EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO
ADDRESSING MICROPLASTIC
POLLUTION. AB 2916 IS ESSENTIAL
FOR CALIFORNIA TO CONTINUE TO BE
A LEADER IN ADDRESSING PLASTIC
POLLUTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE A
SECOND WITNESS, SO I'LL ASK
THOSE WHO WANT TO LINE UP AND
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. PLEASE PLEASE COME
FORWARD. THANK YOU. VANESSA
FORSYTHE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT FOR
FAMILIES ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL
TOXIC SAFETY. GRANDPARENTS FOR
ACTION NORTH COUNTY CLIMATE
CHANGE ALLIANCE, NORTH COUNTY
EQUITY AND JUSTICE, INTERFAITH
COALITION FOR, CLEAN EARTH AND
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HELLO, LEAH JONES, ON
BEHALF OF A VOICE FOR CHOICE
ADVOCACY AND FULL SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. HELLO, ALLISON WALUSZEWSKI
WITH THE FIVE GYRES INSTITUTE
AND ALSO PROVIDING A METOO AND
SUPPORT FOR OCEAN CONSERVANCY.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SEEING NO ONE
ELSE, WE'LL ASK A WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF
FOUR MINUTES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO
USE ALL FOUR MINUTES, BUT YOU
CAN GET FOUR MINUTES. TRY NOT TO
. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU'VE GOT TWO
WITNESSES, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES
EACH. YEAH HELLO, CHAIRMAN
GARCIA AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, PLEASE PULL THE
MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU. OKAY
MY NAME IS AARON PELLERIN. I'M
THE PRESIDENT OF THE RECREATION
MARINE RECREATION ASSOCIATION
AND OWNER OF THE VILLAGE WEST
MARINA AND RESORT IN STOCKTON,
THE LARGEST COVERED RECREATIONAL
MARINA IN CALIFORNIA. AND I'M
HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY
ORGANIZATION'S OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, UNLESS AMENDED. OUR
TEAM HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE
ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN'S OFFICE SINCE THE
BILL'S INTRODUCTION TO TRY AND
WORK OUT SOME ISSUES THAT WE
BELIEVE MUST BE ADDRESSED. IN
OUR LETTER TO YOUR RESPECTIVE
OFFICES, WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE
OF THE WORD MAINTAIN, TRIGGERING
THE REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE A
FLOAT. OUR OUR FACILITIES
REQUIRE CONSTANT MAINTENANCE AND
TRIGGERING THE REPLACEMENT
PROVISION OF THIS BILL FOR
ROUTINE ACTIVITIES SEEMS
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, AND WE'VE
ASKED TO SIMPLY STRIKE THE WORD
MAINTAIN FROM THE BILL, OUR
SECOND SUGGESTED CHANGE IS TO
INCLUDE A GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE
IN THE BILL. DURING OUR MEETING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, THERE
WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON'S MEASURE
THAT WAS ENACTED THIS YEAR, AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ANALYSIS, THAT
BILL CONTAINED A GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH AB 29 16TH MAY
BE DRAFTED TO INFER THE SAME
APPLICATION OF THIS CLAUSE, IT
WOULD GIVE OUR MEMBERS COMFORT
IF THE BILL SPELLED THAT OUT
DIRECTLY IN OUR LETTER TO YOU.
WE, WE DID NOT ADDRESS THE
ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT, SO
SIMILAR TO THE COMMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS, IT SEEMS LIKE MORE
CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD
WORK. WOULD WORK. EXACTLY. AND
WE ARE HAPPY TO AVAIL OURSELVES
TO THAT PROCESS IF APPROPRIATE,
I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE BY SAYING
THAT OUR MEMBERS ARE ARE ARE THE
GATEWAY TO THE STATE WATERWAYS
AND AS AS AN INDUSTRY, WE VALUE
AND PROTECT OUR WATERWAYS. WE
AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL TO KEEP OUR WATERS CLEAN
WITH OUR SUGGESTED CHANGES AND
CONTINUING COLLABORATION WITH
THE AUTHOR, WE BELIEVE WE CAN BE
PARTNERS IN WORKING TOWARDS THE
BILL'S INTENT AND PURPOSE, I'D
ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, AND HER STAFF FOR
LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND
MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS
THEM. THAT'S MUCH APPRECIATED.
THANK YOU, SO THANK YOU. AND
WITH THAT, I'M DONE. NEXT MY
NAME IS RYAN PESA. I'M WITH
WESTERN WOOD PRESERVERS
INSTITUTE. WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. WE'RE NOT AGAINST THE IDEA
OF ENCAPSULATING THESE,
STYROFOAM. WE'RE JUST AGAINST
THE MATERIALS THAT ARE LISTED.
THE FIRST ITERATION OF THE BILL
HAD JUST WOOD, AND WE'RE
REQUESTING THAT TREATED
PRESERVED WOULD BE INCLUDED IN
THE BILL. THESE TYPES OF
PRODUCTS AND THESE MATERIALS ARE
ALREADY USED IN OUR MARINAS AND
OUR DOCKS, IN OUR PORTS. AND
WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR AN
INCLUSION OF PRESERVED WOOD IN
THE BILL. THANK YOU, I'LL ASK,
FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION TO BILL NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JERRY DESMOND WITH
RECREATIONAL BOATERS OF
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED,
PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE
ISSUE ON THE MAINTENANCE AND THE
GRANDFATHERING AND THE
STATEMENTS BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN HERE TODAY. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO ENGAGING TUBERCULOSIS
ISSUES OUT, AND WE CERTAINLY
APPRECIATE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. NICK GARCIA ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HARBOR
MASTERS AND PORT CAPTAINS, AND
WE SHARE THE SAME IDEAS AS THE
MRA DOES. THANK YOU. FANTASTIC.
THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK TO
DÍAS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS. THE MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? I WILL SECOND THE BILL.
WE WILL BEFORE WE TAKE AN ACTION
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. AND THEN
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
AUTHOR FOR A CLOSE. TO ESTABLISH
QUORUM, GARCIA. PRESIDENT GARCIA
HERE. HOOVER. HOOVER HERE.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. HERE.
MCKINNON HERE. PAPIN. REYES
REYES HERE TO. WE HAVE FOUR
MEMBERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OF
THE OPPOSITION OR THE WITNESS IN
SUPPORT, I AM GOING TO PASS
AROUND SOME INCRIMINATING
PHOTOGRAPHS OF STYROFOAM DOING
BAD THINGS AND COMING OUT OF OUT
OF THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T
COME OUT OF TO SHOW THE NEED FOR
THE BILL, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS WHO
HAVE CONCERNS TO TRY TO ADDRESS
THEM. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
REQUEST AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE BILL
DOES HAVE A DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. I
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. WE KNOW THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC, AND I TRUST
THAT YOU WILL WORK WITH, THE
FOLKS WHO ARE HERE TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION ON, ON THESE ISSUES.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION, MADAM
SECRETARY, THIS IS ITEM 13 AB
2916. FRIEDMAN THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. MS.
GARCIA. GARCIA I HOOVER. HOOVER
NOT VOTING. CONNOLLY. CONNELLY I
MCKINLEY. PAPPIN REYES. REYES I
TO OKAY. OKAY. WE WILL KEEP THE
ROLL OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. I'M GOING TO VOTE ON
YEAH, YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
AN ACTION ON THE FIRST TWO BILLS
THAT WE DID HERE WAS, ITEM ONE.
I'LL SECOND. TAKING VOTE ON ITEM
ONE AB 19 TÍNH 63. FRIEDMAN. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED,
AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA I GARCIA
I. HOOVER. HOOVER NØ CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I MCKENNA. PAPPIN
REYES. REYES I. TO OKAY. WE WILL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AS I
MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE GOING
TO BOUNCE AROUND A LITTLE BIT ON
THE AGENDA, SOME MEMBER HANEY,
OKAY. MATTIS ALL RIGHT. COME
FORWARD. OKAY. AND, WE HAD,
GIVEN MISS REYES THE GREEN LIGHT
TO GO UP AFTER MR. HANEY,
ASSUMING THAT YOU WERE GOING
FIRST SO THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW,
AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE
WELL, THANK YOU. CHAIR. STAFF
AND ADVOCATES. TODAY, I'M HERE
TO PRESENT AB 2201. THE AIR
FRESHENER SAFETY ACT, JUST FOR
SOME BACKGROUND, AIR FRESHENERS
ARE DESIGNED TO MASK UNPLEASANT
ODORS AND DISPERSE MORE PLEASANT
SCENT INTO THE AIR. CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTER
AIR FRESHENERS IN INDOOR
ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING
RESIDENCES, SCHOOLS, WORKPLACES,
HOSPITALS, STORES AND HOTELS.
AND ALTHOUGH AIR FRESHENERS ARE
ADVERTISED AS IMPROVING INDOOR
AIR QUALITY, THEY CAN SOMETIMES
POSE RISKS TO CONSUMERS. DÍAS
AIR FRESHENERS CURRENTLY SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA CAN CONTAIN TOXIC
INGREDIENTS THAT CAN EXPOSE
USERS TO HARMFUL CHEMICALS.
THESE CHEMICALS ARE LINKED TO
ASTHMA ATTACKS, MIGRAINES,
HORMONE DISRUPTION,
DEVELOPMENTAL OR REPRODUCTIVE
HARM, AND CANCER. EVEN AIR
FRESHENERS THAT ARE MARKED GREEN
OR ORGANIC CAN CONTAIN
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS,
AND THESE CHEMICALS POSE A
GREATER RISK TO CHILDREN WHO ARE
MORE VULNERABLE TO THEIR EFFECTS
THAN ADULTS. SO IN 2017, THERE
WAS PRIOR LEGISLATION, SB 258,
THE CLEANING PRODUCT RIGHT TO
KNOW ACT, WHICH REQUIRED
MANUFACTURERS OF CLEANING
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING AIR
FRESHENERS, TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN
CHEMICAL INGREDIENTS ON PRODUCT
LABELS AND ON THE MANUFACTURER'S
WEBSITE. BUT THERE'S STILL A
PROBLEM. SO DESPITE THE PROGRESS
MADE UNDER THAT BILL, THE
INGREDIENTS IN AIR FRESHENERS
ARE NOT ALWAYS DISCLOSED TO
CONSUMERS. MANY CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN ARE COMPONENTS OF
FRAGRANCES, EACH OF WHICH MAY
CONTAIN MAY CONTAIN DOZENS OF
INGREDIENTS. DTSC SAFER CONSUMER
PRODUCTS PROGRAM IDENTIFIED AIR
FRESHENERS AS PART OF A PRODUCT
CATEGORY IN THEIR PAST TWO WORK
PLANS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT KNOWN
WHEN THEY WILL BEGIN THE PROCESS
OF ANALYZING AND POSSIBLY
REGULATING AIR FRESHENERS AND
DTSC HAS SAID THEY LACK THE
RESOURCES NECESSARY TO
INVESTIGATE. A SIGNIFICANT
PERCENTAGE OF THE CHEMICALS
INCLUDED IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
THEREFORE, WE HAVE LEGISLATION
TÍNH THAT IS MEANT TO TAKE
ACTION TO PREVENT CONSUMERS FROM
BEING EXPOSED TO HARMFUL
CHEMICALS IN AIR FRESHENERS. AND
THAT'S WHERE MY BILL, AB 2201
COMES IN TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF
AIR FRESHENERS THAT CONTAIN
CERTAIN CHEMICAL INGREDIENTS
THAT ARE LISTED ON DTSC
CANDIDATE CHEMICAL LIST.
BEGINNING IN 2026. CHEMICALS ON
THAT LIST HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
BY DTSC AS HAVING AT LEAST ONE
HAZARD TRAIT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
POTENTIAL HARMFUL EFFECTS SUCH
AS CANCER NEUROTOXICITY,
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY, AND EVEN
MORE. AND IT'S A NARROWED LIST
OF CHEMICALS THAT MAY BE EVEN
EASIER FOR INDUSTRY TO EXCLUDE
FROM THEIR PRODUCTS. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS BILL
DOES NOT SEEK TO BAN AIR
FRESHENERS. WE BROUGHT AN AIR
FRESHENER THAT WILL NOT BE
BANNED UNDER THIS BILL BECAUSE
IT CONTAINS OTHER CHEMICALS THAT
ARE NOT AS PROBLEMATIC, SO
MANUFACTURERS WILL SIMPLY NEED
TO START MOVING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION TOWARDS REFORMULATING
THEIR PRODUCTS. AS SOME
MANUFACTURERS ARE ALREADY DOING.
AND WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES, ALEXIS TIMLIN, PHD,
SENIOR TOXICOLOGIST AT
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, AND
JANET NUDELMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR
AND PROGRAM OF PROGRAM AND
POLICY AT THE BREAST CANCER
PREVENTION PARTNERS. THANK YOU,
CHAIR GARCIA AND MEMBERS. NICE
TO SEE YOU AGAIN SO SOON, THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT. MY NAME IS ALEXIS
TEMKIN. I HAVE A PHD IN
BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES AND SENIOR
TOXICOLOGIST AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP. THE
18 CHEMICAL GROUPS THAT
ENCOMPASS ENCOMPASS 33 UNIQUE
SUBSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN AB, 22
OR 2201, POSE UNNECESSARY Kò
SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS, ESPECIALLY
FOR CHILDREN. EACH OF THESE
CHEMICALS ARE FOUND ON DTZ'S
CANDIDATE CHEMICAL LIST, MEANING
THEY HAVE HAZARD TRAITS THAT MAY
CONTRIBUTE TO ADVERSE HEALTH
EFFECTS IN HUMANS, AND THESE
TRAITS AND CHEMICALS HAVE BEEN
LISTED AND VALIDATED BY EXPERT
SCIENTISTS AND ARE RECOGNIZED BY
THE STATE'S OWN AGENCIES. IN
FACT, THE LIST OF 33 CHEMICALS
IN AB 2201 CONTAINS 14
CARCINOGENS, NINE REPRODUCTIVE
AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANTS, 12
NEUROTOXICANTS, 14 CHEMICALS
THAT CAN HARM THE RESPIRATORY
SYSTEM AND OTHERS THAT CAN
IMPACT THE ENDOCRINE,
CARDIOVASCULAR, AND IMMUNE
SYSTEMS. FOR INSTANCE, LILIAL,
WHICH IS CLASSIFIED BY THE
EUROPEAN UNION AS A REPRODUCTIVE
TOXICANT BASED ON ANIMAL STUDIES
THAT SHOW LILIAL DAMAGES
FERTILITY BY HARMING THE MALE
REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. ANOTHER
EXAMPLE, METHYL EUGENOL, FOUND
ON THE PROP 65 LIST, WAS
REEVALUATED LAST SUMMER BY THE
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR
RESEARCH ON CANCER OR IARC, AND
WAS RECLASSIFIED WITH A STRONGER
CANCER HAZARD. THAT DECISION WAS
LARGELY BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE
THAT METHYL EUGENOL CAN DAMAGE
DNA IN HUMANS. IT'S WIDELY
ACCEPTED THAT THERE'S NO SAFE
THRESHOLD FOR CHEMICALS THAT CAN
CAUSE DAMAGE TO DNA, AND 18 OF
THESE CHEMICALS HAVE MORE THAN
ONE OF THESE HEALTH CONCERNS,
WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR
COMBINED EFFECT OF THESE
CHEMICALS IN INDUSTRY SAFETY
ASSESSMENTS. DESPITE STUDIES
THAT SHOW CHEMICALS AND MIXTURES
CAN CAUSE HARM AT LOWER DOSES
THAN WHEN THEY'RE TESTED
INDIVIDUALLY. THESE ARE
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS THAT DON'T
NEED TO BE IN AIR CARE PRODUCTS.
THEY'RE ALREADY MANY BRANDS AND
COMPANIES THAT ARE NOT USING
THESE INGREDIENTS IN THEIR
FORMULATIONS, AND MANY SAFER
ALTERNATIVES EXIST. LAST EIGHT
OF THESE CHEMICALS WERE RECENTLY
BANNED FROM COSMETICS PRODUCTS
BECAUSE OF THEIR HEALTH
CONCERNS. BY AB 496, WHICH THIS
COMMITTEE PASSED LAST YEAR. WE
URGE THE COMMITTEE TO PASS AB
2201 TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF
CALIFORNIANS BY GETTING THE
WORST CHEMICALS OUT OF THESE
PRODUCTS, WHILE STILL ALLOWING A
VIABLE MARKET FOR AIR CARE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR GARCIA AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS LAURA GILLAN. I WORK
WITH JANET NUDELMAN. I'M HERE
REPRESENTING BREAST CANCER
PREVENTION PARTNERS TO TESTIFY
ON AB 20 201, WHICH WILL PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS FROM HARMFUL
CHEMICALS AND ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS LIKE
PREGNANT WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
PEOPLE WHO CLEAN AND MAINTAIN
OUR HOUSES AND WORKPLACES AND
WHO MAY BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE OR
FACE A GREATER BURDEN OF
EXPOSURE TO THE HARMFUL
CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN AIR
CARE PRODUCTS, ESPECIALLY
SECRET, UNLABELED, OFTEN TOXIC,
FRAGRANT INGREDIENTS. BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS HAS A
LONG STANDING CONCERN THAT SHORT
AND LONG TERME EXPOSURE TO TOXIC
FRAGRANCE CHEMICALS, IS LINKED
TO AN INCREASED RISK OF BREAST
CANCER. OUR MISSION IS TO
ELIMINATE EXPOSURE TO THESE
CHEMICALS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE
EXPOSURES ARE HIDDEN AND
UNNECESSARY, AS IS THE CASE WITH
FRAGRANCE. INGREDIENTS. TWO
THIRDS OF THE CHEMICALS THAT
WOULD BE BANNED BY AB 20 201 ARE
FOUND ON THE INTERNATIONAL
FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION'S
TRANSPARENCY LIST, MEANING THAT
THESE CHEMICALS CURRENTLY ARE OR
CAN BE USED BY COMPANIES AND
FRAGRANCE MIXTURES USED IN
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING AIR CARE
PRODUCTS. NINE OF THESE
CHEMICALS, INCLUDING STYRENE,
METHYL METHYL EUGENOL AND
MYRCENE, ARE ON THE PROP 65 LIST
OF KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER. TWO
OTHER GROUPS, PARABENS AND
PHTHALATES, ARE ROUTINELY
DETECTED IN PEOPLE, INCLUDING
PREGNANT PEOPLE, AND CAN HARM
THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM. EXPOSURE
TO PARABENS, IN PARTICULAR, HAVE
BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH AN
INCREASED RISK OF BREAST CANCER.
TWO OF THE CHEMICALS IN THIS
BILL ARE PRESERVATIVES THAT CAN
CAUSE PRODUCTS TO EMIT
FORMALDEHYDE, A KNOWN HUMAN
CARCINOGEN, AND IS ROUTINELY
ROUTINELY DETECTED IN INDOOR AIR
. PEOPLE CAN BE EXPOSED TO SOME
OF THESE CHEMICALS BY INHALING
THEM ONCE THEY ARE EMITTED INTO
THE AIR, BUT THEY CAN ALSO BUILD
UP ON INDOOR SURFACES AND IN
DUST. THIS IS A COMMON ROUTE OF
EXPOSURE THAT IS ROUTINELY NOT
ACCOUNTED FOR IN INDUSTRY RISK
ASSESSMENTS. AB 20 201 AIMS TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS MOST OR
CALIFORNIA'S MOST SENSITIVE
POPULATIONS BY REMOVING
CHEMICALS WITH KNOWN HEALTH
HARMS FROM AIR CARE PRODUCTS.
ALL OF THESE CHEMICALS HAVE
VIABLE ALTERNATIVES, AND MANY
PRODUCTS ALREADY MEET THESE
STANDARDS. I URGE YOU TO VOTE
AYE ON THIS IMPORTANT HEALTH
PROTECTIVE MEASURE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK
THOSE WHO WANT TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. NAME ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. PLEASE. VANESSA
FORSYTH, GOOD AFTERNOON. IN
SUPPORT CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS,
FAMILIES AND ADVOCATING FOR
CHEMICAL TOXIC SAFETY.
GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION. NORTH
COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE.
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR, EARTH
JUSTICE AND NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
AND JUSTICE. THANK YOU. DOCTOR
BRETT ANDREWS, CHAPTER, SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUPPORTS. M.J. KUSHNER COMMUNITY
WATER CENTER IN SUPPORT MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT WAS ALSO ASKED
TO PASS ALONG THE SUPPORT FROM
CLEAN WATER ACTION. THANKS,
JANET NOODLEMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CAMPAIGN FOR SAFE COSMETICS AND
SUPPORT. ANA CHICO CORNELL IN ON
BEHALF OF ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR
HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS AND FULL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO
WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES THAT WILL
BE TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
NICOLE QUINONEZ REPRESENTING THE
FRAGRANCE CREATORS ASSOCIATION,
A TRADE ASSOCIATION WITH MEMBERS
ACROSS THE FRAGRANCE SUPPLY
CHAIN FROM RAW MATERIAL
SUPPLIERS TO FRAGRANCE,
FRAGRANCE, FORMULATORS AND
FINISHED PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS.
I'M ALSO REPRESENTING THE
HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION IN OUR
MEMBERS WHO FORMULATE,
MANUFACTURE AND SELL AIR CARE
PRODUCTS, AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
NOTED, AIR CARE PRODUCTS DO
EXIST FOR A REASON TO HELP FIGHT
UNPLEASANT ODORS IN OUR
ENVIRONMENTS. AND THERE'S
ACTUALLY BEEN STUDIES DONE TO
SHOW THAT MALODOR IS HAVE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR
WELL-BEING. THEY INCREASE
FEELINGS OF DEPRESSION,
DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES, AND
IMPAIR PERFORMANCE SCIENCE. BUT
AIR CARE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO FIGHT THE EFFECTS OF
THOSE MALE ODORS. AND OUR
INDUSTRY CARES VERY DEEPLY ABOUT
THE SAFETY OF THEIR INGREDIENTS
AND THE CONSUMERS WHO USE THESE
PRODUCTS, WHICH GO THROUGH
RIGOROUS SAFETY TESTING AND
COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL AND
STATE REGULATIONS. AND WE
CERTAINLY DO APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS TO AB 2201, WHICH
REDUCED THE NUMBER OF
INGREDIENTS TO THE THOSE THAT
APPEAR ON THE CANDIDATE
CHEMICALS LIST. HOWEVER, WE DO
STILL REMAIN OPPOSED. AND AS AN
INDUSTRY, OUR PREFERENCE IS
ALWAYS TO COME TO THE TABLE TO
TRY TO SOLVE THESE COMPLEX
POLICIES. THAT'S WHAT WE DID ON
THE CLEANING PRODUCTS, RIGHT TO
KNOW ACT, WHICH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REFERENCED. WE DID WORK
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO
MAKE SURE THAT BILL WOULD
PROVIDE CONSUMERS WITH MORE
INGREDIENT INFORMATION SO THEY
CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES
REGARDING THE PRODUCTS THEY'RE
PURCHASING. ANY INGREDIENT ON
THE CANDIDATE CHEMICALS LIST.
AND NOW, UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS
BILL, ARE REQUIRED TO BE
DISCLOSED AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED
AS TRADE SECRET. SO ANY OF THOSE
INGREDIENTS IN A FRAGRANCE WILL
APPEAR AS AN INGREDIENT IN AN
AIR CARE PRODUCT IF THEY'RE USED
, BUT USING A HAZARD BASED LIST
TO PROVIDE INGREDIENT
INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS FOR
TRANSPARENCY IS APPROPRIATE. BUT
USING THAT LIST TO BAN
INGREDIENTS COMPLETELY IGNORES
THE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATING HOW
THOSE PRODUCTS ARE USED AND THE
POTENTIAL RISK IN THOSE
APPLICATIONS, WHICH IS WHY WE
BELIEVE THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
INSTEAD LOOK TO THE SAFER
CONSUMER PRODUCTS PROGRAM AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL BECAUSE THEY USE A
SCIENCE BASED PROCESS TO
IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PRODUCTS THAT
CONTAIN POTENTIALLY HARMFUL
CHEMICALS AND TO EVALUATE THOSE
SAFER ALTERNATIVES. BLANKET BANS
ARE COUNTER TO THE REASON THAT
PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED, AND
THIS BILL SIDESTEPS THAT PROCESS
THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
REGULATED COMMUNITY HAVE
INVESTED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
INTO DEVELOPING. AND WHILE THE
CANDIDATE CHEMICAL LIST IS MADE
UP OF OVER 3000 CHEMICALS LISTED
FROM 22 AUTHORITATIVE LISTS FROM
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC BODIES,
THE AUTHORITATIVE BODY FINDING
THAT INGREDIENT INGREDIENT IS
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS DOES NOT,
AGAIN EQUATE TO RISK. AND WHILE
THERE'S BEEN CRITICISM REGARDING
THE NUMBER OF PRODUCTS AND
CHEMICALS THE PROGRAM HAS LOOKED
AT SO FAR, I WOULD COUNTER BY
SAYING A DELIBERATIVE AND
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IS ALWAYS
GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME THAN A
DIRECT BAN, BECAUSE IT DOES
EVALUATE THAT NUANCE ON THE
SCIENTIFIC DATA, DANCE WITH
FRAGRANCE CREATORS ASSOCIATION
WILL DISCUSS THE NUANCE BETWEEN
RISK VERSUS HARVARD HAZARD AND
THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE
INDUSTRY REDUCES RISKS OF
INGREDIENTS. THANKS, NICOLE, DAN
SLOTNICK, PHD, IN THE BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES AND DIRECTOR OF
REGULATORY SCIENCE WITH
FRAGRANCE CREATORS ASSOCIATION.
FIRST, I'LL ELABORATE ON THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAZARD AND
RISK. JUST ABOUT ANYTHING CAN BE
ASSOCIATED WITH A HAZARD. FOR
EXAMPLE, IF CONSUMED IN
EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES, EVEN WATER
CAN DILUTE THE SODIUM CONTENT IN
YOUR BLOOD SO MUCH THAT IT WOULD
BECOME LIFE THREATENING. NOW
IMAGINE BANNING WATER BECAUSE OF
THIS POTENTIAL HAZARD. THIS IS
WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER RISK, OR THE LIKELIHOOD
THAT A POTENTIAL HAZARD WILL
OCCUR AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF
EXPOSURE IN THE CASE OF WATER
DRINKING, THE RECOMMENDED DAILY
INTAKE OF ABOUT 9 TO 13 CUPS
WILL NOT POSE ANY RISK TO YOUR
LIFE AND, MOREOVER, IS
INCREDIBLY BENEFICIAL IF NOT
CRITICAL. SIMILARLY, AT HIGH
ENOUGH DOSES, FRAGRANCE
INGREDIENTS ARE BOUND TO BE
ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS HAZARDS.
HOWEVER THE FRAGRANCE INDUSTRY
IS AWARE OF THIS AND TAKES GREAT
CARE TO MAINTAIN LOW EXPOSURE
LEVELS TO ITS INGREDIENTS, SUCH
THAT THE HAZARDS ARE EXTREMELY
UNLIKELY TO OCCUR. THE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE FOR FRAGRANCE
MATERIALS OR RHYTHM IS AN
INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC
ORGANIZATION STAFFED BY
TOXICOLOGISTS. THEY PERFORM
SAFETY ASSESSMENTS ON ALL
INGREDIENTS USED IN THE
FRAGRANCE INDUSTRY, IN WHICH
THEY CONSIDER AREAS LIKE
RESPIRATORY AND REPRODUCTIVE
TOXICITY. IN CASES WHERE RISK
MANAGEMENT IS NEEDED, RHYTHM
CALCULATES MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE
CONCENTRATIONS PER PRODUCT
CATEGORY FOR AN INGREDIENT WHICH
ARE USED TO GENERATE STANDARDS
THAT SERVE AS USE LIMITS FOR THE
INDUSTRY. WHEN APPLICABLE,
RHYTHMS. RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
IS SIMILAR TO PROP 65 SAFE
HARBOR LEVEL DEVELOPMENT. FOR
EXAMPLE, FOR A POTENTIAL
CARCINOGEN. BOTH WOULD CONSIDER
THE SAME DATA SETS, EMPLOY THE
SAME TYPES OF ANALYZES, SUCH AS
BENCHMARK DOSE CALCULATION, AND
USE A CONSERVATIVE SAFETY FACTOR
OF 10,000 TO MINIMIZE RISK. ALL
OF RHYTHM SAFETY CONCLUSIONS
MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY
THE EXPERT PANEL FOR FRAGRANCE
SAFETY, ANOTHER INDEPENDENT BODY
WITH EXPERTS SUCH AS PHYSICIANS,
ACADEMIC PROFESSORS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS WITH NO
AFFILIATIONS TO INDUSTRY FOR
FROM SAFETY ASSESSMENTS ALSO
UNDERGO PEER REVIEW AND
PUBLICATION IN AN ELSEVIER
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. NICOLE HAS
ALREADY DISCUSSED THE BENEFITS
OF FRAGRANCE AIR FRESHENERS,
REGULATION OF THESE INGREDIENTS
TO KEEP EXPOSURES AT SAFE LEVELS
IS CRITICAL, BUT A BLANKET BAN
WILL NOT ACHIEVE THIS AND ONLY
SERVES TO UNDERCUT THE POSITIVE
IMPACTS OF FRAGRANCE ON PEOPLE.
PERFUME AND THE PLANET. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ARE OPPOSED TO
AB TWO 201 AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, WE WILL ASK THE FOLKS
IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANT TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE
YOUR NAME. THANK YOU. DON
KOEPKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION AND
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, TIM CIZEK WITH THE
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ALSO
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. KELLY
LARUE WITH THE AMERICAN CLEANING
INSTITUTE IN OPPOSITION. ANYONE
ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL BRING THE
ISSUE BACK TO THE DAIS AND
QUESTIONS OF THE AUTHOR. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN FAVOR OR
AGAINST? YES NO. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK A
COUPLE QUESTIONS. I THINK, IN
RELATION TO WHAT THE OPPOSITION
SAID. I KNOW, ONE OF THE
TESTIMONIES WAS ON THE HAZARD
TRAITS THAT ARE IN SOME OF THESE
CHEMICALS. I KNOW THERE'S A
NUMBER OF THINGS THAT, IN THE
RIGHT DOSAGE, CAN BE HAZARDOUS
THAT WE CONSUME EVERY DAY. AND
SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT
THE GOAL IS FOR THIS BILL TO
KIND OF CIRCUMVENT THE, THE
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH THAT WE
ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. AND KIND
OF GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
VERSUS ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THIS
THE, SAFE, CONSUMER PRODUCTS
PROGRAM TO PLAY OUT. OKAY WELL,
I WOULD SAY WHAT YOU KNOW, NOT
EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW IF THEY ARE
TRULY EXPOSED TO THAT DOSAGE FOR
ONE. SO YOU COULD HAVE JANITORS
OR CLEANERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY
GETTING MUCH HIGHER DOSAGE THAN
WHAT IS INTENDED, OR PEOPLE IN
PUBLIC SPACES THAT ARE GETTING A
HIGHER DOSAGE THAN WHAT'S
INTENDED. AND THEN THE OTHER
PIECE IS IT'S TAKING AN
INCREDIBLY LONG TIME FOR
CHEMICALS THAT WE KNOW CAN CAUSE
SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS. OKAY, SO
I KNOW THIS BILL FOCUSES ON ONE
SPECIFIC PRODUCT CATEGORY, I
ASSUME THAT THESE CHEMICALS ARE
IN OTHER PRODUCTS AS WELL
OUTSIDE OF THE FRAGRANCE SPACE.
BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS, LIKE,
WHY ARE WE FOCUSED IN ON THIS
PRODUCT CATEGORY SPECIFICALLY?
PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY CAN BE SO
PREVALENT LIKE THEY ARE IN THE
AIR. THEY ARE IN PRODUCTS FOR
AIR FRESHENERS THAT ARE SORT OF
LIKE PERMEATE ALL AROUND US. SO
THE EXPOSURE TO THEM, I THINK
YOU HAVE A GREATER RISK OF
HAVING SORT OF AN OVEREXPOSURE
TO THEM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
OKAY. AND JUST FOR THE
OPPOSITION, I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU
HAD ANY MORE INFORMATION ON
THAT, IN PARTICULAR ON, YOU
KNOW, OTHER PRODUCTS THAT THESE
CHEMICALS MIGHT BE A PART OF AND
MAYBE WHAT, WHERE THE PROCESS
CURRENTLY STANDS, THROUGH THE
CHAIR ON ON THE, YOU KNOW, THESE
CHEMICALS SPECIFICALLY. THANK
YOU. YEAH. FRAGRANCE INGREDIENTS
IN GENERAL TEND TO BE USED AS
FRAGRANCES FOR THE MOST PART,
SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE
PRICIER SIDE TO MANUFACTURE. AND
THEY DO HAVE SCENTS. SO THEY
TEND TO BE LIMITED TO USES AS
FRAGRANCE IN TERMS OF OTHER
PRODUCT CATEGORIES, THEY TEND TO
FIND THEMSELVES IN CLEANING
PRODUCTS AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS,
AND SORRY, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER
PART TO YOUR QUESTION? I THINK
JUST LIKE WHERE WHERE ARE SOME
OF THESE CHEMICALS THAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY IN THE PROCESS?
THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS THAT YOU
DISCUSSED ALREADY AND WHAT IS
THE TIMELINE ON THAT? YEAH. SO
REGARDLESS OF PRODUCT CATEGORY
REFORM, WOULD INVESTIGATE ALL
FRAGRANCE INGREDIENTS. AND THEN
THEY'RE LIKE I SAID, THEY HAVE A
RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS. SO
ANYTHING THAT'S SORT OF TIPS OFF
ANY RED FLAGS, THEY'LL DO A
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT ON IT
AND CALCULATE MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE
CONCENTRATION. AND THAT'S
ACTUALLY SENSITIVE TO THE
PRODUCT CATEGORY TYPE. SO
THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO
CALCULATE ONE LIMIT ACROSS ALL
PRODUCT CATEGORIES. IT'LL BE
SPECIFIC TO DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES. AND THAT CAN ALSO BE
BASED ON WHERE THE PROMINENT
EXPOSURES ARE TO THE INGREDIENT
DEPENDING ON WHAT CATEGORIES
THEY'RE IN AND THEN WHERE YOU
WHAT ENDPOINTS LIKE LIKE WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT RESPIRATORY OR
REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY. WHERE ARE
YOU ACTUALLY SEEING THE ADVERSE
EFFECTS? OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS. AND I WON'T BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY,
BUT I DO THANK YOU FOR WORKING
ON ON THOSE AMENDMENTS. IF I IF
I COULD CLARIFY THE TIMELINE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. NO PROBLEM.
DTSC HAS SAID IT WOULD TAKE
SEVEN YEARS FOR THEM, AT LEAST
SEVEN YEARS FOR THEM TO GET
THROUGH ALL OF THESE AND THAT
THIS WOULD REQUIRE DOZENS AND
DOZENS OF REGULATIONS, BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE
REGULATION PER SE. SO I
APPRECIATE UNDERSTAND WHERE
YOU'RE AT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT
AN INCREDIBLY EXTENDED TIMELINE
FOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE HARMING
PEOPLE TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.
YEAH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS COMMENTS OKAY. I
APPRECIATE YOU ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS TO NARROW THE SCOPE
OF THE BILL. SIMILAR TO SOME
COMMENTS I MADE EARLIER IN TERMS
OF DTSC AND THE ROLE THAT THEY
HAVE, I THINK WE ALSO SHOULD
TAKE A LOOK AT HOW LONG THEY
TAKE TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER OR NOT THESE CHEMICALS
SHOULD BE ON THE MARKET OR NOT.
AND SO KIND OF A PARALLEL
PROCESS OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE BAN OF THESE
CHEMICALS, WE SHOULD ALSO BE
PUTTING SOME PRESSURE OVER THERE
TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE
ALTERNATIVES MIGHT BE. AND IT
SHOULDN'T TAKE SEVEN YEARS TO
DETERMINE THAT. RIGHT. SO YOU
KNOW, SOME THOUGHTS AND
PERSPECTIVES THERE IN TERMS OF
WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO,
ALONG THE WAY. ALSO TO TAKE A
CLOSE LOOK AT HOW WE MAY BE ABLE
TO EXPEDITE THAT PROCESS AS WELL
. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER
IS, BUT WE CERTAINLY SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT THAT IF WE'RE GOING
TO CONTINUE TO MOVE IN THIS
PARTICULAR DIRECTION. SO AGAIN,
THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? SURE. AND IF I MAY,
CHAIR, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH
YOU ON THE ISSUE WITH DTSC. I
WILL JUST, REFOCUS THE COMMITTEE
ON THIS EXAMPLE THAT I BROUGHT
TO SAY THAT IT'S ALREADY IN
PROCESS FOR MANY OF THESE
FRAGRANCE CHEMICALS. THERE ARE
ALREADY PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT
ARE USING ALTERNATIVES. SO THE
ALTERNATIVES DO EXIST RIGHT NOW,
TODAY AND ARE BEING SOLD ON THE
SHELF. SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN
A GOOD POSITION AND WANT TO
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH US TO CREATE THESE
AMENDMENTS TO CREATE A STRONGER
BILL. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT. IT
DOES HAVE A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WE I'LL MOVE THE
BILL SECOND BY MISS REYES ROLL
CALL, PLEASE. ITEM THREE AB 2201
ADUS. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA, A GARCIA. AYE. HOOVER.
HOOVER. NO. CONNOLLY CONNOLLY.
AYE. MCKENNA. PAPPIN PAPPIN.
AYE. REYES. REYES. AYE TO. WE
HAVE FOUR VOTES FOR ONE. WE WILL
KEEP THAT, OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. WE RECEIVED
TWO REQUESTS FROM MEMBERS WHO
HAVE WITNESSES WHO HAVE TO GET
GOING. I KNOW MR. HANEY'S BEEN
WAITING PATIENTLY. THOSE MEMBERS
WHO MIGHT GO IN FRONT OF HIM ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE HIM TO MY
WELL AND BUY HIM A CHICKEN
POZOLE AFTER TONIGHT. THE GREEN
CHICKEN, THE GREEN ONE, MR. LEE,
YOU HAVE A WITNESS THAT, HAS TO
GET OUT SOON, PLEASE COME
FORWARD, MISS REYES ALSO HAS A
WITNESS. AND THEN MR. HANEY WILL
GO, AFTER MISS REYES AND, TWO
POOR SOULS FROM BOTH MEMBERS WHO
ARE GOING BEFORE HIM.
AND MR. LEE WILL JUST BE
PRESENTING ON ONE BILL, AND THEN
HE'LL BE BACK TO. YES. THANK
YOU. AS WILL MISS REYES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
COLLEAGUES ON TÌM. I DO SAY THAT
I'M. IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK IN
ESTARÁ AND PRESENTING A BILL
BEFORE YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S HARD WORK ON THIS
BILL AND YOUR FLEXIBILITY, SINCE
WE DO HAVE A TEN YEAR OLD
WITNESS WHO OUGHT TO BE GOING
BACK TO SCHOOL AT SOME POINT,
BUT TODAY I'M GOING TO BE
PRESENTING A VERY SIMPLE BILL
THAT'S ABOUT PROTECTING KIDS.
NOW YOU MAY BE WONDERING, WHY
DID I GO ON A $200 SHOPPING
SPREE AT SEPHORA? AND THAT IS
BECAUSE THERE ARE THESE PRODUCTS
THAT ARE ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS
THAT A CHILD TODAY CAN FREELY
WALK ONTO THE STORE AND BUY BY
THEMSELVES. NOW I REMEMBER I
SAID, THESE ARE $200. THERE'S
NOTHING LEFT IN THE BAG. THERE'S
ONLY FIVE, FOUR THINGS IN THERE.
SO THESE ARE PRODUCTS THAT ARE
VERY EYE CATCHING, VERY
TEMPTING, BUT THEY'RE ANTI-AGING
AGING PRODUCTS. NOW, LET ME
REITERATE THAT THERE ARE
CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 12 AND
UNDER THAT ARE BUYING ANTI-AGING
PRODUCTS. NOW TAKE THE TWIST ON
THAT TOO, IS NOT IS IT NOT? IS
IT JUST ONLY UNNECESSARY FOR
CHILDREN? BUT IT CAN ALSO BE
POTENTIALLY HARMFUL. SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE FILLED WITH
BEAUTY INFLUENCERS PROMOTING
SKINCARE PRODUCTS, RESULTING IN
A PHENOMENON WE'VE CALLED
SEPHORA KIDS, WHERE CHILDREN ARE
BUYING AND USING ADULTS
ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS THAT ARE
UNSUITABLE FOR THEIR YOUNG SKIN.
CHILDREN HAVE MORE SENSITIVE
SKIN THAN ADULTS, AND COMMON
INGREDIENTS IN ANTI-AGING SKIN
PRODUCTS ARE RETINOLS GLYCOLIC
ACID AND SORBIC ACID, WHICH ARE
ALL HIGHLY IRRITATING
INGREDIENTS THAT CAN LEAD TO
REDNESS, ITCHING, SWELLING,
DRYNESS, PEELING, AND INCREASED
SKIN SENSITIVITY. THE PRODUCTS
WE ENCOMPASS IN THE BILL IN THE
BILL CONTAIN HARSH, POTENT,
ACTIVE CHEMICALS. WHEN IT COMES
TO ALPHA HYDROXY ACIDS, THE FDA
REPORTED ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT
INCLUDE BURNING DERMATITIS,
SWELLING, PIGMENTARY CHANGES AND
BLISTERS. THE BRITISH
ASSOCIATION OF DERMATOLOGISTS
HAS WARNED THAT THE CHILDREN
USING SKIN PRODUCTS WITH
ANTI-AGING INGREDIENTS OR OTHER
POTENT ACTIVITIES, ACTIVES, CAN
LEAD TO IRREVERSIBLE SKIN
PROBLEMS. IN ADDITION, THE
PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL
RELEASED A STATEMENT JUST LAST
WEEK STATING THAT DERMATOLOGISTS
AGREE THAT ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS
ARE GENERALLY UNNECESSARY FOR
YOUNGER SKIN DATA FROM NIELSEN
IQ SHOWS THAT TWEENS, TWEENS,
NOT EVEN TEENS DRIVE 49% OF MASS
SKINCARE GROWTH. THE SKINCARE
INDUSTRY ITSELF IS WORTH AN
ESTIMATED $180.3 BILLION
GLOBALLY, ACCORDING TO STATISTA.
AND ALL THIS TO SAY IS THAT THE
BEAUTY INDUSTRY IS A
MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY
THAT KNOWINGLY THAT KNOWS THAT
THESE ANTI-AGING SKINCARE
PRODUCTS SHOULD NOT BE USED BY
CHILDREN. AND I'LL POINT TO THIS
EXAMPLE OF FAQ OR THE FAQ AND
THESE HANDOUTS THAT I GAVE YOU
IS THAT THE INDUSTRY KNOWS THAT
THEY THAT CHILDREN ARE USING
THEIR PRODUCTS AND CONTINUE TO
MAKE MONEY OFF CHILDREN,
INCLUDING SELLING PRODUCTS TO
KIDS THAT THEY KNOW THEY
SHOULDN'T BE USING. THERE ARE
SOME COMPANIES WHO HAVE
ACKNOWLEDGED THE ISSUE BY MAKING
STATEMENTS THAT KIDS SHOULD BE
KIDS, AND THE KIDS AND TEENS
HAVE NO NEED FOR ANTI-AGING
AGING PRODUCTS. BUT I'LL POINT
TO YOU SOME OF THE POSTERS
BEHIND ME. SO WE HAVE HERE WE
HAVE ONE, COSMETIC COMPANY HERE
THAT SAYS TEENS DON'T NEED THE
TEN STEP BEAUTY REGIME. AND IN
IT, WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT THEY
SHOULD SAY TO AVOID INGREDIENTS
LIKE RETINOIDS AND ALPHA HYDROXY
ACIDS AT THE START OF YOUR
JOURNEY, WHICH CAN ALREADY BE
HARSH. AND OF COURSE, THIS IS
WHAT YOU SEE IF YOU GO ON
TIKTOK, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNG
GIRLS AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM
THAT'S FED IN THEIR ALGORITHM AS
WELL. I WILL POINT OUT THIS FAQ
FROM DRUNK ELEPHANT, WHICH IS
THESE TWO VERY CUTE PRODUCTS
HERE. I'M NOT SPONSORED QUÊ
PRODUCTS HERE FOR ANTI-AGING
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ONE THAT
LITERALLY SAYS BABY FACIAL,
WHICH YOU SEE ALSO HERE IS THIS
IS ON THEIR FAQ THAT SAYS THEY
DO NOT ADVISE 12 AND YOUNGER TO
USE THEIR PRODUCTS. YET WHEN WE
BOUGHT THESE PRODUCTS, THERE IS
NO WARNING OF THAT ON THE IN THE
BOX INSIDE ON THE PACKAGE,
NOTHING. AND YET THE INDUSTRY
SAYS CONTINUALLY AND IN ALL THE
OTHER HANDOUTS YOU SEE, IS THAT
IT SHOULD BE ON THE ADULTS OR
THE PARENTS RESPONSIBILITY, BUT
EVEN ME, SOMEONE WHO ALSO USES
SKIN PRODUCTS, DOESN'T ALWAYS
KNOW WHAT EVERY SINGLE
INGREDIENT DOES. BUT THE
SCIENTISTS ALREADY KNOW THAT IT
CAN BE HARMFUL. SO WITH ME TODAY
TO TESTIFY IS SCARLETT. SHE'S A
TEN YEAR OLD FIFTH GRADER WHO IS
HERE TO TELL HER STORY ABOUT
USING THESE PRODUCTS AND SUSAN
LITTLE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP. SO I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO SCARLETT NOW, HELLO. MY
NAME IS SCARLETT. GODDARD.
STRAHAN. I AM TEN YEARS OLD,
FIFTH GRADER, AND I ATTEND
COURTYARD PRIVATE SCHOOL, I'M
HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT MY,
BEAUTY PRODUCTS I'VE USED IN THE
PAST AND HOW THEY AFFECTED ME.
ME AND MY FRIENDS MOSTLY LIKE TO
SPEND A LOT OF OUR FREE TIME
WATCHING VIDEOS LIKE TIKTOK AND
YOUTUBE, AND MOSTLY IN THE
VIDEOS THEY TALK ABOUT THEIR
SKINCARE ROUTINE AND DURING THE
VIDEOS, THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THE
PRODUCTS MADE THEIR SKIN GLOW,
FEEL HYDRATED AND OTHER GOOD
THINGS. AFTER HEARING THIS, I
WANTED TO BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT
MY SKIN COULD FEEL THAT WAY TOO.
I STARTED BUYING PRODUCTS ON MY
OWN THROUGH PLACES LIKE AMAZON,
TARGET AND NORDSTROM RACK. I
WOULD BUY THINGS ONLINE AND USE
GIFT CARDS FOR MY BIRTHDAY OR
CHRISTMAS. I WOULD ALSO GO TO
STORES WITH MY FRIENDS AND MY
SISTER AND USE MONEY THAT I
SAVED TO BUY THINGS. I WOULD
SOMETIMES GET FREE SAMPLES OF
THINGS AT STORES. I MOSTLY LOOK
FOR SHEET MASK CREAMS AND MISTS
AND OTHER PRODUCTS WITH WORDS
LIKE GLOW HYDRATING, BRIGHTENING
AND ANTI WRINKLING BECAUSE I
DIDN'T WANT TO GET WRINKLES IN
NO OFFENSE. LOOK, OLD. AFTER
USING THESE PRODUCTS, I STARTED
HAVING SKIN REACTIONS LIKE
BURNING AND BUMPS ON MY CHEEKS
THAT ITCHED LIKE A RASH,
ESPECIALLY WHEN I WENT OUT IN
THE SUN. I THOUGHT IT WASN'T
WORKING AND THAT I NEEDED TO USE
MORE OF THE PRODUCTS. ONE NIGHT
I PUT ON A MASK AND IT BURNS SO
BAD THAT I STARTED CRYING AND
WENT TO GO TELL MY MOM FOR ABOUT
TWO WEEKS. IT WAS REALLY PAINFUL
AND I HAD A HARD TIME SLEEPING,
SO I WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR
TYLENOL TO HELP WITH MY FACE
PAIN. SOME OF MY FRIENDS AT
SCHOOL HAVE ALSO HAD THE SAME
THINGS HAPPEN TO THEM. ONE OF MY
FRIENDS USED DRUNK ELEPHANT,
WHICH I COULD NEVER AFFORD
BECAUSE IT'S WAY TOO MUCH MONEY
AND SHE LIKED TO USE IT BECAUSE
IT WAS THE MOST POPULAR ONES. WE
WERE SEEING ON THE VIDEOS. AND
SHE REALLY LIKES TO TRY TO BE
POPULAR. HER FACE LOOKS SO BAD.
SHE HAD A REALLY BAD RASH ON HER
FACE. I STOPPED USING THESE
PRODUCTS A WHILE AGO AND USED
NIVEA AND SUNSCREEN NOW, BUT I
STILL HAVE BUMPS ON MY CHEEKS
AND THEY GET ITCHY AND RED WHEN
I SWEAT AND WHEN I'M OUT IN THE
SUN, I FEEL EMBARRASSED THAT I
HAVE BUMPS ON MY FACE AND PEOPLE
AT MY SCHOOL ASK ME WHY MY
CHEEKS ARE SO RED. IT MAKES ME
REALLY SELF-CONSCIOUS. I'M
WORRIED MY SKIN IS ALWAYS GOING
TO LOOK LIKE THIS AND FEEL LIKE
THIS. I REALLY WISH THAT I WOULD
HAVE KNOWN THESE PRODUCTS WOULD
HAVE AFFECTED ME, BECAUSE IF I
DID, I WOULD NEVER HAVE USED
THEM. I DIDN'T KNOW I COULD BUY
SOMETHING THAT SOUNDED SO GOOD,
BUT WOULD ACTUALLY HURT MY SKIN.
I WANTED GLOWING SKIN AND
INSTEAD I HAVE RED, ITCHY SKIN.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COME
HERE AND TELL YOU ABOUT MY
EXPERIENCE WITH BUYING AND USING
BEAUTY PRODUCTS. THANK YOU
SCARLETT. NEXT WITNESS SURE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SUSAN
LITTLE AND I'M REPRESENTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
TODAY. THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF
THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN
ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS IS TO
INCREASE SKIN TURNOVER AND
CREATE A YOUNGER APPEARANCE.
BUT. BUT CHILDREN ALREADY HAVE
SMOOTHER, YOUNGER SKIN, AND
THEIR SKIN NATURALLY RENEWS
ITSELF AT A FAST PACE. SO
ANTI-AGING INGREDIENTS ARE NOT
HELPFUL TO THEIR SKIN, REPORTS
INDICATE, HOWEVER, SUCH AS
SCARLETT'S STORY THAT CHILDREN
AND TWEENS ARE SEEKING OUT AND
USING ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS AT
BEST, THESE PRODUCTS WON'T
PROVIDE ANY SKIN BENEFITS TO
THEM, AS THESE PRODUCTS ARE
DESIGNED FOR OLDER ADULTS AT
WORST, THE PRODUCTS MAY DO HARM
TO THEIR SKIN. COMMON
INGREDIENTS IN ANTI-AGING SKIN
PRODUCTS ARE RETINOLS AND ALPHA
HYDROXY ACIDS, WHICH ARE ALL
HIGHLY IRRITATING AND WHEN USED
REGULARLY, CAN IN SOME INSTANCES
CAUSE SKIN TO TURN RED, ITCH,
SWELL, DRY OUT, PEEL, AND OVER
TIME WITH CONTINUAL USE, DEVELOP
TOPICAL DERMATITIS AND ECZEMA.
RETINOL IS ALSO AN IRRITANT, A
KNOWN CARCINOGEN, AND
PROPOSITION 65 LISTED
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANT SUCH
REYES HAVE ALSO LINKED VITAMIN A
DERIVATIVES TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF SKIN LESIONS AND TUMORS ON
SUN EXPOSED SKIN. FOR OLDER
ADULTS, THE BENEFITS OF
ANTI-AGING SKINCARE MAY OFFSET
THE RISKS, BUT FOR CHILDREN AND
TWEENS WHO ALREADY EXPERIENCED
RAPID CELL TURNOVER, THERE ARE
NO BENEFITS, ONLY UNWARRANTED
RISKS FROM USING THESE PRODUCTS.
PLEASE SUPPORT AB 2491 TODAY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL
SUPPORTERS, REGISTER YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION,
PLEASE. MELISSA ROMERO
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT AND WAS ALSO ASKED TO
PASS ALONG THE SUPPORT OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? GOOD
AFTERNOON, VANESSA FORSYTHE.
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT
AS WELL AS FAMILIES ADVOCATING
FOR CHEMICAL TOXICITY SAFETY
GRANT, PARENTS FOR ACTION. NORTH
COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE,
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR EARTH
JUSTICE, NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND
JUSTICE NORTH. YES. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANA CHICO
CORNELL ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
NURSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AND JUSTICE, IN FULL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE?
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL ASK, WITNESSES
THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES, AND WE'VE
BEEN PRETTY, PRETTY LENIENT IN
THE FOUR MINUTES. BUT IF WE CAN
STAY WITHIN THE FOUR MINUTES, I
APPRECIATE THAT. WE'VE GOT A
LONG LIST OF BILLS TODAY, AND I
JUST APPRECIATE THE
CONSIDERATION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MANDY
ISAACS LEE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE INTENT OF THE
AUTHOR BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY
ACTUALLY AGREES THAT CHILDREN DO
NOT NEED ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS. IN
FACT, AS A RESULT OF HEIGHTENED
ATTENTION AROUND THIS SOCIAL
MEDIA TREND, OUR COMPANIES HAVE
ALREADY BEGUN EDUCATING THE
PUBLIC TO THIS FACT AND ARE
ENCOURAGING KIDS TO JUST BE
KIDS. SOMETHING THAT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO DO IN THIS NEW ERA
OF SOCIAL MEDIA. AS POINTED OUT
IN THE ANALYSIS. OUR CONCERN,
HOWEVER, IS WITH HOW THIS BILL
IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
FOUNDATIONAL WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT WE ARE LEGISLATING
PERMANENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW
BASED ON SOCIAL MEDIA TRENDS,
WHICH CAN BE AND OFTEN ARE,
TEMPORARY IN NATURE. I CAN LIST
OFF A LITANY OF SOCIAL MEDIA
TRENDS THAT INVOLVE CHILDREN. IN
RECENT YEARS DOING A LOT OF ILL
INFORMED THINGS, INCLUDING THE
CINNAMON CHALLENGE, THE
DISHWASHER POD CHALLENGE, THE
CHOKING CHALLENGE. YOU MAY HAVE
HEARD OF THESE TRENDS, BUT THESE
TRENDS COME AND GO. WHAT WE ARE
ENACTING WITH 2491 WILL HAVE
LASTING IMPACTS. ONCE THIS TREND
PASSES. ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S NO
SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO JUSTIFY THIS
BAN. THE INGREDIENTS BANNED
UNDER THIS BILL ARE SAFE AND THE
PRODUCTS THEMSELVES ARE SAFE
WHEN USED AS DIRECTED. THE
COMMITTEE SHOULD ASK ITSELF
WHETHER IT IS AN APPROPRIATE
ROLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO BAN
PRODUCTS THAT ARE SAFE FOR USE
MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING
MISUSED BY SOME AS PART OF A
TEMPORARY SOCIAL MEDIA TREND. AS
WRITTEN, 2491 COULD BAN A WIDE
RANGE OF OTC COSMETIC PRODUCTS,
INCLUDING SUNSCREENS,
MOISTURIZERS, CLEANSERS WHICH
ARE ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR
TWEENS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY
CONTAIN ONE OF THESE TARGETED
INGREDIENTS. WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT ARE
BANNED FROM OUR YOUTH, YOU THINK
OF TOBACCO, FIREARMS, ALCOHOL,
CANNABIS. WE ARE PUTTING STAY
SAFE COSMETICS IN THE SAME RISK
CATEGORY AS THESE PRODUCTS. THE
MOST LIKELY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM
USING THESE ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS
ARE MILD SKIN IRRITATIONS,
DRYNESS, REDNESS, THINGS OF THAT
NATURE. AND AGAIN, THESE
PRODUCTS MUST BE USED AS
DIRECTED. BUT A BAN IS NOT THE
RIGHT APPROACH. I WANT TO
REITERATE THAT WE AGREE THAT
CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED
WITH PREVENTING WRINKLES OR
USING ANTI-AGING PRODUCTS, WHICH
ARE GENERALLY UNNECESSARY FOR
YOUNGER SKIN. HOWEVER THE BAN
PROPOSED IN 2491 IS NOT THE
RIGHT APPROACH, AND SINCE THIS
IS A NEWER EMERGING TREND, WE
WOULD ASK THE AUTHOR AND THE
COMMITTEE TO ALLOW THE INDUSTRY
TO RESPOND BEFORE ENACTING A
BAN. THAT WILL HAVE A LOT OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
ARGUABLY WON'T ACHIEVE THE
DESIRED INTENT OF THE AUTHOR.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE ASK FOR A
NO VOTE. MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MARGARET GLADSTEIN KAPOSI HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION. WE TOO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING
LIGHT TO THIS ISSUE, BUT WE MUST
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE BILL. FIRST
AND FOREMOST, THERE'S SIMPLY NO
WAY FOR US TO VERIFY A CHILD'S
AGE IF THEY'RE UNDER 12 OR 13.
UNDER UNDER 13, THERE'S NO STATE
ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. WE CANNOT
REASONABLY, COMPLY WITH THE BILL
WITH THIS BAN IN IT. THE BILL
ALSO PROHIBITS THE SALE OF
PRODUCTS THAT ARE ADVERTISED AS
ANTI-AGING TO CHILDREN UNDER 13.
WE SAY WE HAVE STORES THAT SELL
EVERYTHING FROM SKIWEAR TO
SKINCARE. THERE'S NO WAY FOR US
TO KNOW HOW EVERY PRODUCT IS
ADVERTISED. I WOULD ALSO NOTE
THAT MARKETING CAMPAIGNS TODAY
CAN CHANGE ON A DIME IF
SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING. THE AD
CHANGES QUICKLY. MANY OF YOU
KNOW THIS FROM YOUR CAMPAIGNS.
YOU CHANGE ADS QUICKLY.
MARKETING CAMPAIGNS CAN CHANGE
VERY QUICKLY AS WELL. SO THERE'S
NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR A RETAILER
TO KNOW WHICH SONG, WHICH AD
CAMPAIGNS OR WHICH PRODUCTS ARE
BEING ADVERTISED AS ANTI-AGING.
AND FINALLY, I WOULD NOTE THAT,
AS AMENDED, THE BILL ACTUALLY
NOW PUTS TWO REQUIREMENTS ON
RETAILERS. ONE IS THAT WE MAY
NOT SELL THESE PRODUCTS TO
CHILDREN UNDER 13, AND WE HAVE
TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS, I
BELIEVE THE AUTHOR'S INTENT WAS
ACTUALLY TO IMPROVE THE BILL
FROM A RETAIL PERSPECTIVE, BUT
IT HAS MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT
AND SET UP TWO DIFFERENT
STANDARDS. AS THE ANALYSIS
RIGHTFULLY POINTS OUT, THAT
RETAILERS, MUST ARE TWO
DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE
TO MEET. AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THOSE WISHING TO
REGISTER YOUR OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON.
DYLAN KOEPKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
TRENT SMITH, ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS. ADAM WRIGLEY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, DAN
SCHORR, FOR THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.
WE'LL BRING THE ISSUE BACK TO
THE DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR, WORKING ON THIS. AND
THANK YOU, SCARLETT, FOR TELLING
YOUR STORY, SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK THE OPPOSITION HAS
FLAGGED A FEW. IT SOUNDS LIKE
WORK IS ONGOING, BUT JUST SO I'M
CLEAR, UNDER THE AMENDMENTS,
WOULD YOU ACTUALLY BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BILL, I.E,
AVOID LIABILITY BY PROVIDING A
NOTICE? YES. SO LITERALLY NOTICE
PROVIDED NO LIABILITY. YES AS IN
THE AMENDED LANGUAGE WITH THE
COMMITTEE. YOU SEE THAT AMONG
THE OPTION, THE MENU OF OPTIONS
THAT A COMPANY CAN BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OF THEM IS A
PHYSICAL NOTICE NEAR THE PRODUCT
OR THE CASHIER OR EVEN AN ONLINE
NOTICE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S
SOLD IN BRICK AND MORTAR STORES
AND ONLINE. A NOTICE WOULD
SUFFICE. COMPLIANCE AND
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF IN
APPROPRIATE TO BE USED FOR
PEOPLE UNDER 13. SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. I DO AGREE WITH THE POINT.
I THINK PART OF THIS ALSO WILL
JUST BE GETTING EDUCATION OUT
THERE. SO IF THIS GOES FORWARD,
I STILL THINK THAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE TRACK AS WELL. THE
SECOND QUESTION AND, IT'S KIND
OF REDUCED A LITTLE BIT BY YOUR
FIRST ANSWER, BUT STILL THERE'S
HOW WOULD THIS BE ENFORCED. LIKE
AND I THINK THAT WAS RAISED
PRIMARILY AROUND NÓ ID BUT
AGAIN, IF WE'RE JUST TALKING
ABOUT A LABEL OR NOT EVEN A
LABEL, LIKE A NOTICE ON A WALL
OR SOMETHING NEARBY, HOW DO YOU
ANTICIPATE THIS GETTING
ENFORCED? YEAH. AND HAS BROUGHT
UP WITH THE CONCERNS BY THE
OPPOSITION. I UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY HAVE, CONCERNS ABOUT THE
IMPLEMENTATION ENFORCEMENT
ASPECT OF IT. SO WE'VE BEEN
REACHING OUT PROACTIVE ABOUT HOW
THAT CAN BE THE CASE. SO WITH
THOSE RECENT AMENDMENTS YOU SAW
WITH THE MENU OF OPTIONS,
INCLUDING THE NOTICE, WE WANTED
TO PROVIDE OPTIONS. RIGHT. THESE
ARE THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO
REASONABLE STEPS TO DO SO. AND
THAT WAS ALSO THE REASONABLE
STEP. LANGUAGE WAS BASED OFF OF
A BILL FROM A COUPLE YEARS BACK
WHEN CHILDREN WERE UNFORTUNATELY
BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE FIREARMS
ON AMAZON USING PREPAID GIFT
CARDS. AND THE REASONABLE STEP
LANGUAGE WAS ADOPTED FROM THAT
BILL. SO WE'RE USING PRODUCT,
WE'RE USING COMPLIANCE LIKE
THAT. I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT
TODAY IF YOU GO INTO SEPHORA, I
MEAN, IF YOU'RE 11 YEARS OLD,
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GET WAXING
RIGHT NOW. THAT'S A COMPANY
POLICY. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED RIGHT
NOW. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
INDUSTRIES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW
THAT HAVE ENFORCEMENT ON AGE
RANGES UNDER 18. RIGHT NOW, WHEN
IT COMES TO VIDEO GAMES, R-RATED
MOVIES, OR WAXING SERVICES. AND
EVEN WITH OUR ONLINE PROTECTION
NOTICES FOR YOUNG YOUNG ADULT,
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IS THAT
OFTENTIMES IF THE SELF-CERTIFY,
THEY'RE 13. SELF-CERTIFICATION
IS ALSO ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS
THAT WE ALLOW AS WELL. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, I
GUESS, WELL, I DO HAVE A
COMMENT, BUT FIRST, I WAS KIND
OF HOPING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEHIND, YOU
KNOW, THE PROPOSED BAN AND LIKE
THE ACTUAL KIND OF CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES THAT YOU FEEL ARE
DAMAGING HERE. YEAH. I'LL DEFER
TO SUSAN LITTLE. SURE THANK YOU,
WELL, WE KNOW THAT. HA. THAT
ALPHA HYDROXY ACIDS, AS I SAID,
ARE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BE,
USUALLY THEY ARE VERY SMALL.
THEY'RE VERY SMALL LEVELS AND
THAT AND IF THEY'RE AN ACID THAT
IS DESIGNED TO ACTUALLY BREAK
THE SKIN BARRIER AND CREATE
EXFOLIATION ON THE SKIN FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE THAT, OF COURSE, IS
NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THEIR SKIN
IS ALREADY REJUVENATING ITSELF,
JUST RAPIDLY, WHAT IT WILL DO IS
IT'LL BREAK THE SKIN BARRIER AND
IT EXPOSES THEIR SKIN. THEN TO
IRRITANTS, TO BACTERIA, TO OTHER
THINGS THAT CAN THAT CAN CAUSE
REDNESS AT THE MINIMUM AND OVER
TIME, IT CAN ACTUALLY TURN INTO
MORE SERIOUS, COMPLEX SITUATIONS
LIKE ECZEMA AND TOPICAL
DERMATITIS, SOME OF THE, THE
CHEMICALS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
FOR INSTANCE, THE VITAMIN A
DERIVATIVE IS, CAN ACTUALLY ARE
ACTUALLY LINKED TO, TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF, OF SKIN LESIONS
AND TUMORS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE
IT IT CREATES MORE SUN
SENSITIVITY FOR THE SKIN. AND OF
COURSE THAT THEN RESULTS IN,
ESSENTIALLY SUN DAMAGE TO THE
SKIN, WHICH CAN LEAD TO THESE
TUMORS AND TO AND TO, IT
POTENTIALLY IT, IT, IT CAN LEAD
TO, TO CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS. SO,
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES
AS TO WHY IT'S THEY NEED TO BE
USED WITH CARE. THEY CAN BE
BENEFICIAL, ESPECIALLY, YOU
KNOW, FOR ADULTS IN SOME
INSTANCES, BUT CERTAINLY
CHILDREN, IT THEY'RE NOT
DEVELOPING ANY KIND OF BENEFIT
HERE. THEY'RE NOT RECEIVING ANY
BENEFIT FROM USING THESE
PRODUCTS. BUT CAN DEFINITELY BE
EXPOSED TO HARM, CERTAINLY TO,
MORE SUN SENSITIVITY AND, AND
SUN DAMAGE TO THEIR SKIN AT A
VERY YOUNG AGE, WHICH IS
PROBLEMATIC. THANK YOU. I THINK
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE
OPPOSITION HAD ANY THOUGHTS ON
ON THAT, BUT ALSO LIKE WHAT?
WHAT ARE THE TESTING
REQUIREMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW,
HAVE TO KIND OF TAKE PLACE
ALREADY WITH THESE PRODUCTS?
YEAH. THROUGH THE CHAIR, I
WANTED TO ADDRESS THE FIRST
QUESTION, WHICH IS AROUND THE
SCIENCE BEHIND THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY THIS BAN. AND THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION. VITAMIN A AND
VITAMIN C AND ITS DERIVATIVES
ARE NATURALLY OCCURRING
INGREDIENTS. YOU CAN FIND THEM
IN YOUR FOOD, AND THEY ARE SAFE
PRODUCTS, AND THE LEVELS THAT WE
USE THEM IN, IN COSMETICS ARE
CERTAINLY UNDER SAFE LEVELS, I
WILL POINT TO THE ANALYSIS,
WHICH DOES A GOOD JOB OF
SUMMARIZING MANY PASSED LAWS AS
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED,
THAT HAVE BANNED PHTHALATES,
THAT HAVE BANNED BPA, THAT HAVE
BANNED, PFAS IN CHILDREN'S
PRODUCTS BECAUSE THERE WERE
KNOWN, STUDIED HARMS ASSOCIATED
WITH THOSE TOXIC CHEMICALS. THE
SAME CANNOT BE SAID ABOUT
VITAMIN A AND VITAMIN C. THANK
YOU. I YOU KNOW, TO THE AUTHOR,
I THINK, INTERESTINGLY, I THINK
YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED A REALLY
IMPORTANT PROBLEM WITH THIS
BILL. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M
CONVINCED THAT IT'S THE PRODUCTS
THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, PER SE. I
DO THINK, THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA
ASPECT OF THIS BILL IS VERY,
VERY CONCERNING TO ME. AND I
THINK, YOU KNOW, IN PRIVACY
COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT
NOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THIS A LOT. AND IN, IN REALLY
LIMITING ACCESS, ESPECIALLY FOR
YOUNG KIDS TO SERVICES LIKE
TIKTOK AND, AND LIKE INSTAGRAM
AND THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE
THESE TRENDS ARE REALLY
STARTING. AND I THINK FOR ME,
THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE I'M MORE
COMFORTABLE, FOCUSING OUR
ATTENTION ON, WHILE I ABSOLUTELY
APPRECIATE SCARLET, EVERYTHING
THAT YOU HAD TO SAY AND I'M VERY
SORRY FOR THE IMPACTS THAT THIS
HAS CAUSED, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK
THAT, THAT THAT'S PROBABLY, TO
ME, THE MORE APPROPRIATE FOCUS
FOR, FOR THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT
NOW IS TO KIND OF FOCUS IN ON
THAT. SO PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. QUESTION I DO WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS, AND BUT I
WANT TO BEGIN WITH SCARLET.
SCARLET YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL. THANK
YOU. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
BEAUTIFUL. AND YOU NEED TO
REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
BEAUTIFUL. AND, I APPRECIATE
THAT YOU'VE COME HERE TO TALK
ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE, WITHOUT A
DOUBT, YOU NEED TO DO SOME
TIKTOK THINGS. I'M NOT SAYING I.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TIKTOK OR
OPPOSED TO IT, BUT I'M JUST
SAYING YOU NEED TO DO SOME OF
THIS ALSO TO SO THAT OTHER YOUNG
GIRLS WILL KNOW THE EFFECT OF
THE NHÀ OF USING THESE PRODUCTS.
I IN THE LITERATURE YOU GAVE US,
WHERE DOVE IS ACTUALLY DOING A
CAMPAIGN TO REMIND YOUNG, YOUNG
GIRLS OR REMIND THE REST OF US
TO, TO PROVIDE, TO REMIND OUR
YOUNG GIRLS THAT THEY DON'T NEED
TO DO ANY OF THIS. I THINK
THAT'S IMPORTANT. I HOPE, OTHER
OTHERS DO THE SAME THING, BUT I
THINK THAT WE DO HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR, OUR
YOUNG, YOUNG GIRLS, TO YOUNG TO
THE YOUNG, YOUNG PEOPLE. AND IF
THAT MEANS PROVIDING THE
LABELING, THE WARNING, THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY
ARE USING THESE PRODUCTS. IF,
IF, IF WE HAD NO IDEA THAT
YOUNG, YOUNG 13 YEAR OLDS OR 12
YEAR OLDS WERE WERE USING THE
PRODUCT, WELL, THEN WE DIDN'T
HAVE TO. WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING. BUT IF WE KNOW THAT
THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AS A
RESULT OF SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THEY
ARE USING THE PRODUCTS, THEN I
THINK WE DO HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO MORE. AND
AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, YES,
HAVING MORE CONTROLS IN SOCIAL
MEDIA. BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY
KNOWING THESE PRODUCTS ARE BEING
USED BY 1112 YEAR OLDS, AND WE
DO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. AND I
THINK THAT HAVING LABELING,
HAVING WARNINGS, WHETHER IT'S ON
THE PRODUCT OR WHERE IT IS BEING
SOLD, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. I'M
NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS A
LABELING BILL, THAT ISN'T WHAT
YOU'RE PRESENTING TO US, BUT I
THINK THAT SOMETHING DOES NEED
TO BE DONE. THIS IS THE FIRST
COMMITTEE, THAT THE BILL IS
BEING HEARD IN. AND I THINK IT
DESERVES TO, TO, TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE DISCUSSIONS WITH
OPPOSITION AS TO HOW THIS CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED, BECAUSE I THINK WE
ALL AGREE THAT OUR TEN, 11, 12
YEAR OLDS SHOULD NOT BE USING
THIS, THESE PRODUCTS. AND WE
HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO STOP IT,
SO, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. YES AND I'M SORRY
I MISSED YOUR PRESENTATION,
YOUNG LADY. I'M PRETTY SURE IT
WAS FABULOUS, I THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS UP AS WELL. I
DO, AND I WILL, GIVE YOU AN I
VOTE IN THIS COMMITTEE, TO MOVE
IT ON, BUT I DO WORRY ABOUT HOW
WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE. I DO, I
KNOW THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT A
LABELING BILL, BUT I PROBABLY
WOULD RATHER SEE A WARNING THAN,
YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT SOMEONE
HAS TO CHECK ID, BECAUSE THAT'S
PUTTING, YOU KNOW, IMPLICATIONS
ON THE STORE. WHAT ARE THEY
GOING TO DO? HOW ARE THEY GOING
TO ENFORCE THIS WHEN YOU'RE
DOING IT ONLINE? HOW DO THEY
ENFORCE IT ONLINE? SO I DON'T
KNOW HOW WE ENFORCE SOMETHING
FOR SOMEONE THAT'S 13 AND UNDER.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE VIDEOS
BECAUSE I ONCE HAD KIDS 13 AND
UNDER, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY
ENFORCED IT IN THE VIDEO STORES
OR EVEN IN THE MOVIE THEATER. I
DON'T KNOW IF THEY ENFORCED IT.
HOW DO THEY DO PG 13? I DON'T
KNOW IF THEY HOW THEY REALLY
ACTUALLY ENFORCE IT. AND SO I'LL
BE I'LL BE GIVING YOU AN EYE
VOTE, BUT I, I KNOW THAT YOU
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO RESPOND? YEAH. JUST TO
SAY TO THAT POINT, SENATOR
MCCAIN, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
MEAN, I REMAIN COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH ALL GROUPS ON THIS.
AND IF WE WANT TO PUT WARNING
LABELS ON HOW DANGEROUS THESE
THINGS COULD BE ON THE PRODUCTS
THEMSELVES, I'M HAPPY TO GO DOWN
THAT ROUTE AS WELL. OKAY. ANY
OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, YOU DO HAVE A Dð PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. AND SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE
YOU CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION, TO FIND THE BALANCE
THAT I THINK THIS BILL STILL
SEEKS, RIGHT, IN TERMS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OF IT. SO, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE OR. YES THANK YOU
SO MUCH, SCARLETT REMINDED ME
THAT SHE HAD BROUGHT SOME
PICTURES OF SOME OF THE PRODUCTS
THAT SHE BROUGHT. IF YOU WANT TO
SHOW THESE PRODUCTS THAT YOU HAD
USED THAT CAUSED SOME OF THIS
IRRITATION OF WHAT THEY LOOK
LIKE, SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE
PRODUCTS AND HOW THEY WERE
DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED. AND YES,
THE INDUSTRY SAYS THAT THEY DO
NOT MARKET THESE TO KIDS, DON'T
ADVERTISE THE KIDS. BUT I WILL,
BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THESE
THINGS ARE DESIGNED IN A CERTAIN
WAY, NOT ON ACCIDENT, ON
PURPOSE. AND THE INDUSTRY, WHILE
THEY ARE MARKETED, ARE MOUNTING
CAMPAIGNS TO SAY BEING A KID IS
GOOD ENOUGH. DON'T WORRY ABOUT
THESE THINGS. THOSE ACTIONS ARE
UNFORTUNATELY PERFORMATIVE
BECAUSE THEY STILL READILY
ACCEPT THE MONEY FROM KIDS. YOU
HEARD FROM SCOTT HERSELF THAT
SHE COULDN'T AFFORD DRUNK
ELEPHANT. THESE THINGS ARE
PREMIUM STUFF RIGHT NOW. AND NO,
THERE ARE NO FREE SAMPLES TO
ANYONE. THESE ARE MINE. THESE.
SO THESE THINGS ARE PREMIUM
PRODUCTS THEMSELVES AND THIS IS
A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MARKET,
THE VICE CHAIR BROUGHT UP A GOOD
POINT ABOUT WHAT SAFETY, WHAT'S
SAFE AND WHAT'S A SAFE LEVEL,
RIGHT. THE EU DOES BANS
OVER-THE-COUNTER RETINAL
PRODUCTS OF OVER 0.3. THIS ONE
THAT I'M HOLDING IN FRONT OF YOU
IS 1% ALREADY. I DON'T KNOW
PARTICULARLY HOW BAD IT COMPOUND
IT IS, BUT IT IS WAY OVER THE
EUROPEAN ALLOWED. AND THE
IMPORTANT ASPECT TOO IS TO TALK
ABOUT IS OVER-THE-COUNTER. SO
YOU HEAR THE OPPOSITION USE THE
PHRASE A LOT, USE AS DIRECTED.
DIRECTED BY WHOM? I DIDN'T GO TO
THE DOCTOR TO GET THIS. I DIDN'T
ASK ANYONE TO STORE. THERE WAS
NOTHING ON THE WEBSITE. THERE'S
NOTHING ON THE PACKAGING. WHO IS
DIRECTING ME TO DO WHAT. AND I
DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS SAFE.
RIGHT? BECAUSE IF YOU GET IT
PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR, THE SAME
PRODUCTS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS OKAY. IF YOU NEED ACNE
MEDICATION, SKIN MEDICATION,
THAT'S OKAY. THAT DOESN'T TOUCH
THIS. SO THAT'S A VERY KEY
PHRASE THAT YOU HEAR A LOT IN
THE INDUSTRY. AND THAT'S WHY
WITH ALL THE PERFORMATIVE TALK,
YOU HEAR WHY OUR BILL IS
NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THAT.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT IS A
TREND SPURRED BY SOCIAL MEDIA,
SPURRED BY KIDS TODAY, THEY CAN
READILY WALK IN TODAY TO THE
STORE AND PONY UP THE MONEY. AND
AS YOU HEARD FROM SCARLETT, IT'S
READILY ACCESSIBLE FOR THEM. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU IF I VOTE
AND APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
TODAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW
IF THERE'S A MOTION ALREADY OR A
SECOND. I'LL MOVE THE BILL
SECOND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL ASK FOR A ROLL CALL. ITEM
NINE AB 2491. LEE THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED AND
REREFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA AYE.
GARCIA. AYE. HOOVER. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE PAPIN. PAPIN. NOT VOTING.
REYES REYES. AYE TO THREE. FOUR.
WE HAVE FOUR VOTES. OKAY. WE
WILL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR
OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AND
WE'RE GOING TO ASK MR. HANEY TO
COME FORWARD. WE WILL NOT KEEP
HIM WAITING ANYMORE. HE WILL
PRESENT A BILL THAT HAS NO
OPPOSITION, HAS A Dð PASS
RECOMMENDATION. HE HAS ACCEPTED
AMENDMENTS. AND THERE'S REALLY
NO REASON TO KEEP HIM WAITING
ANYMORE. ALL RIGHT. THERE IS A
MOTION. THERE IS A SECOND. HE
HAS A WITNESS THAT WILL BE
SHORT, GREAT, CONCISE. AND SO.
ALL RIGHT, I WILL BE VERY QUICK.
AB 2365 WILL PROTECT
CALIFORNIA'S CONSUMERS BY
ESTABLISHING HEALTH AND SAFETY
REGULATIONS FOR KRATOM PRODUCTS
SOLD IN THE STATE. KRATOM IS A
TREE IN THE COFFEE FAMILY NATIVE
TO SOUTHEAST ASIA, AND LOW, LOW
DOSES, IT CAN PROVIDE PRODUCE A
BENEFICIAL STIMULANT EFFECT IN
HIGHER DOSES, IT CAN HAVE
NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS. MANY STATES
HAVE DECIDED TO REGULATE KRATOM.
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO DO THAT AS
WELL. A RECENT AMENDMENTS MAKE
SURE THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS 21
AND OVER CAN PURCHASE SAFE
KRATOM PRODUCTS, IT HAS A LOT OF
SUPPORT AND NO OPPOSITION. AND
HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY IS DAVID
QUINTANA ON BEHALF OF THE GLOBAL
KRATOM COALITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, WE WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU TO ASSEMBLYMAN
HANEY FOR BRINGING THIS BILL,
IT'S VERY RARE IN THIS INDUSTRY
WHERE YOU SEE SOMEONE JUMP AHEAD
OF A PROBLEM BEFORE THERE'S A
CRISIS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SEE
THIS BILL DOING, YOU KNOW,
HONESTLY, I DON'T FEEL A NEED TO
GIVE A SPEECH IF WE'RE GOOD TO
GO. SO THANK YOU. GO, FOLKS ARE
WANTING TO REGISTER THEIR
POSITION AND SUPPORT. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN WITH
THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA
NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
AND ALL THE POA AND DSA'S LISTED
IN THE ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE? AS MENTIONED EARLIER,
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, BUT I'LL
JUST, YOU KNOW, ASK IF THERE'S
ANYONE WHO THE LAST MINUTE OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE BRING IT BACK TO
DÍAS. ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS
CONCERNS. THERE'S A MOTION A
SECOND I'D LIKE TO CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU MUCH TO PASS.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROPRIATION.
ROLL CALL ITEM ITEM SEVEN AB
2365 HANEY. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA A GARCIA I HOOVER.
CONLEY. CONLEY I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. I PAPPIN PAPPIN I REYES
REYES I TO 345. YEAH. OKAY. WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR THE
MEMBERS TO ADD ON, SOME MEMBER
REYES WILL BE PRESENTING FILE
NUMBER 12. THIS BILL, I BELIEVE,
ALSO HAS NO OPPOSITION. HAS A Dð
PASS TO COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. HER WITNESSES,
HAVE ALSO COMMITTED TO BE VERY
BRIEF. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME.
YES. YEAH. I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FLOOR
IS YOURS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU AB
2827, WHICH PROTECTS OUR
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY. AB 2827
WILL REQUIRE THE STATE TO DETECT
AND ERADICATE INVASIVE SPECIES
THAT COULD HARM CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURE. CALIFORNIA'S
CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING ONE OF
ITS HIGHEST LEVELS OF EXOTIC
FRUIT FLY INFESTATIONS IN ITS
RECORDED HISTORY, ACCORDING TO
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE. THESE
INVASIVE SPECIES CAN RESULT IN
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LOSSES
EVERY YEAR. IF THEY BECOME
PERMANENTLY ESTABLISHED IN
CALIFORNIA. IN 2023, THERE WERE
OVER 900 FRUIT FLY DETECTIONS IN
15 COUNTIES. IN COMPARISON, AN
AVERAGE YEAR WILL SEE ABOUT 75
FRUIT FLY DETECTIONS IN SEVEN
COUNTIES. HUNDREDS OF CROPS ARE
THREATENED BY INVASIVE FRUIT
FLIES, INCLUDING NUTS, CITRUS,
VEGETABLES AND BERRIES. IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE BRING ATTENTION
TO THE IMPACTS INVASIVE SPECIES
HAVE ON OUR SHARED ENVIRONMENT
AND ENSURE WE ARE IMPLEMENTING
LONG TERME STRATEGIES TO PROTECT
OUR LOCAL ECONOMY. WE MUST
PROTECT OUR FOOD SOURCES AND
THOSE OF MILLIONS OF OUR
AMERICANS. AB 2827 SEEKS TO
PRIORITIZE MITIGATION EFFORTS
AGAINST THE SERIOUS THREAT OF
INVASIVE PEST SPECIES. HERE TO
TESTIFY OF THE ON BEHALF OF THE
BILL ARE EVAN SANFORD, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE REDLANDS CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, AND JOHN BEALL,
MEMBER OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FIRE BUREAU. FARM BUREAU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M EVAN SANFORD
, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
REDLANDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
AND IT'S AN HONOR AND A
PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT 500
BUSINESS MEMBERS, WHICH IS MADE
UP OF THOUSANDS OF OWNERS,
EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS IN THE
REGION FOR OVER A CENTURY. AS A
COMMUNITY IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, OUR LOCAL HISTORY
HAS BEEN CLOSELY TIED TO THE
CITRUS INDUSTRY, AND THREE
PIECES OF ARTWORK IN THIS
HEARING ROOM TESTIFY TO THAT.
TESTIFY TO THAT FACT IN SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE PASSAGE OF AB 2827 WILL
ENSURE THAT WE CAN PROTECT OUR
PAST AND AT THE SAME TIME,
EMBRACE THE FUTURE. AND THE
REDLANDS CHAMBER IS PROUD TO BE
A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. IT
WOULD HELP OUR LOCAL GROWERS AND
FARMERS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
FIRST, IT WOULD RECOGNIZE THE
THREAT THAT THESE INVASIVE
SPECIES, LIKE THE ORIENTAL FRUIT
FLY, CAN HAVE WHEN QUARANTINES
GO INTO EFFECT, RENDERING ENTIRE
FARMS COMPLETELY LOST FOR NEARLY
A YEAR, THEIR INCOME HAS BEEN AT
ZERO, WHILE EXPENSES HAVE
REMAINED CONSTANT. AND FOR
GENERATIONAL FARMS LIKE OLD
GROVE FARMS, THAT PUTS EVEN MORE
PRESSURE ON THEM. AND THAT'S
AFTER SUCCESSFULLY NAVIGATING
THE COVID PANDEMIC. THE IMPACT
OF THIS CURRENT QUARANTINE HAS
BEEN STUNNING AND OFFICIALS FROM
THE CDFA HAVE STRESSED THAT THE
FRUIT FLY, AS THE MEMBER SAID,
COULD CAUSE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN LOSSES EVERY YEAR. AB 2827
WOULD ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIA'S
INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH, OUTREACH
AND EDUCATION TO RAISE AWARENESS
ABOUT INVASIVE SPECIES RISKS AND
PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES.
IT WOULD HOLD STATE AGENCIES
ACCOUNTABLE DURING DISASTERS,
REQUIRING THEM TO COLLABORATE
WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO DETECT,
CONTROL, MONITOR AND ERADICATE
INVASIVE SPECIES WHILE
SAFEGUARDING AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS BILL
WOULD DIRECT THE CDFA AND OTHER
STATE AGENCIES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS
FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT, AND ANOTHER ONE OF
OUR LOCAL GROWERS, SANDERS
FARMS, ON THE IMPACT OF THE
CURRENT QUARANTINE, SAYS, QUOTE,
THE FRUIT FLY AND RESULTING
DESTRUCTION OF OUR FRUIT HAS HAD
A DEVASTATING FINANCIAL IMPACT.
WE'RE FRUSTRATED THAT THE CDFA
HAS COMMUNICATED LITTLE AND DONE
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AS WE
ENTER A NEW SEASON, WE FEAR A
REPEAT AND OUR FAMILY DEPENDS ON
THE INCOME. AND THIS YEAR IT'S
AT ZERO, WHERE SMALL COMMERCIAL
GROWERS AND MUST CARRY THE
EXPENSE OURSELVES. END QUOTE.
FINALLY IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS
REALISTIC AND REASONABLE AND
WILL RESULT IN POSITIVE OUTCOMES
FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THE
REDLANDS CHAMBER IS PROUD TO BE
CO-SPONSORING THIS LEGISLATION,
AND OF OUR SUPPORTIVE
PARTNERSHIP WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ELOISE. GÓMEZ REYES. OUR MISSION
IS TO HELP ANYONE WITH A
BUSINESS AND THAT MEANS NOT JUST
ON OUR DOWNTOWN STATE STREET,
BUT OUR LOCAL GROWERS AND
FARMERS AS WELL. AND YOU CAN
SUPPORT THEM TOO, WITH YOUR
SUPPORT OF AB 2827. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. I'M JOHN BEALL, I'M A
SEVENTH GENERATION CALIFORNIAN
AND A FIFTH GENERATION OF A
CITRUS GROWING AND PACKING
FAMILY IN WHAT I CALL THE NAPA
VALLEY OF THE NAVEL ORANGE
REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA. I'M ON THE
BOARD OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FARM BUREAU, AND I'M ALSO
ON THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU,
STATE COMMODITY COMMITTEE FOR
FRUIT TREES, I MYSELF AM A SMALL
GROWER. ONE OF THESE DAYS I HOPE
TO BE A FULL COMMERCIAL FARMER.
I'M NOT QUITE THERE YET, BUT I'M
WORKING ON IT. I GROW CITRUS
WINE, GRAPES, CAPERS, AND
LOOFAH, IN THE MEANTIME, I WORK
FOR A RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY,
AND I HAVE A BUSINESS MAKING
PRODUCTS FROM LOCAL PRODUCE, I
SUPPORT AB 2827 FOR THREE MAIN
REASONS, NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE
WHAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING NEAR MY
HOME WITH THE ORIENTAL FRUIT
FLY, THE LARGEST OUTBREAK OF
FRUIT FLY IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY,
AND IN SEVERAL OTHER AREAS IN
CALIFORNIA, THREATENS THE FUTURE
OF OUR AGRICULTURE, IMPACTING
OVER 230 DIFFERENT CROPS,
INCLUDING CITRUS AND WINE GRAPES
FROM THE SMALLEST HOME GARDEN TO
THE LARGEST FARM. TODAY IT'S US.
AND IF IT'S NOT CHECKED, IT
COULD SPREAD, NEARLY EVERY
COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA HAS SOME
FORM OF UNIQUE AND IMPORTANT
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY CHERISHED
BY THOSE COMMUNITIES. IT COULD
JUST AS EASILY BE ANY OF US
TOMORROW, PARTICULARLY IN TREE
AGRICULTURE, SUCH AS WHAT WE'RE
ENGAGED IN IN MY HOME AREA,
INTERRUPTIONS LIKE THESE CAN
WEAKEN WORKFORCES, DESTABILIZE
INDUSTRIES, AND DISINCENTIVIZE
THE CONTINUED CAPITAL INVESTMENT
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN FARMS AND
PROCESSING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A
HEALTHY LOCAL ECONOMY. THE
STABILITY OF OUR LOCAL
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIES ACROSS
THE STATE DEPEND UPON SWIFT,
DECISIVE ACTION TO KEEP RISKS
FROM BECOMING EXISTENTIAL
THREATS. NUMBER TWO, OUTBREAKS
LIKE THIS HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE.
THEY WILL CONTINUE HAPPENING,
AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY WILL BE
INCREASINGLY FREQUENT AND
VIRULENT WITH RISING AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES AND WITH
CALIFORNIA'S EVER EXPANDING ROLE
IN LOGISTICS IN THE GLOBAL
SUPPLY CHAIN. I MYSELF HAVE
RECEIVED PACKAGES FROM ABROAD
THAT HAVE HAD GRUBS, GRUBS OF
INVASIVE PESTS. THE JAPANESE
BEETLE ON THE BOTTOM OF
PALLETIZED BOXES WITH A BIT OF
ORANGE PEEL STUCK NEXT TO THEM,
AND I HAVE TO WONDER IF THIS HAS
OCCURRED MORE THAN ONCE, NUMBER
THREE, PARTICULARLY IN OUR AREA,
PESTILENCES LIKE THESE ARE NOT
COVERED BY PRIVATE CROP
INSURANCE. THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT, AND THAT HAS
BEEN THE MAIN ROADBLOCK TO
ADDRESSING THE OUTBREAK AT THE
COMMERCIAL LEVEL. CDFA HAS DONE
A GREAT JOB WITH RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES, BUT UNLESS WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM
HOLISTICALLY, IT'S SHIFTING
CHAIRS FROM ONE SIDE OF THE DECK
OF A SINKING SHIP TO THE OTHER,
DELAYS IN ADDRESSING OUTBREAKS
EARLY ARE COSTLY, AND THE
CHANCES OF A BREEDING POPULATION
ESTABLISHING ITSELF GO FOREVER
UPWARD, AS DO THE CHANCES OF IT
SPREADING ELSEWHERE. SINCE PAST
SUCCESSES IN ERADICATING
INVASIVE PESTS IN CALIFORNIA,
LIKE THE MEDFLY, OUTBREAKS IN
THE 80S AND 90S, HAVE DEPENDED
UPON SWIFT, COORDINATED EFFORTS
UNDERTAKEN AT THE STATE LEVEL
THAT MAKES SENSE TO EQUIP THE
STATE TO BE SWIFT AND PRESENT
AND FUTURE INTERVENTIONS.
PERHAPS EVEN CATCH AND ADDRESS
OUTBREAKS BEFORE QUARANTINES AND
FAR MORE COSTLY MEASURES BECOME
NECESSARY. THANK YOU. AND I'M
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, I'LL
ASK, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE THAT WANT TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT ON THE BILL,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME.
ORGANIZATION. POSITION. ETHAN
NAGLER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. READ ADDIS ON BEHALF
OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, BRENDA BASS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, NOEL
KRAMER WITH WINE INSTITUTE IN
SUPPORT, KIRK WILBUR WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, AARON
NORWOOD WITH THE ALLMAN
ALLIANCE. I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE
OF THE AUTHOR'S EFFORTS AS WE
BATTLED THE BEETLE. AND WE'RE
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, TAYLOR OCEAN. I'M NOT
GOING TO NAME. THE 200
COMMODITIES, BUT ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL, A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL,
ALONG WITH THE CALIFORNIA APPLE
COMMISSION, AVOCADO, BLUEBERRY
AND WALNUT COMMISSION, FRESH
FRUIT ASSOCIATION GROWERS,
SHIPPERS, WESTERN EGG
PROCESSORS, AND CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PEST CONTROL
ADVISORS AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MICHAEL MILLER,
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS, WE'RE CO-SPONSOR
OF THE BILL. WE THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR HER LEADERSHIP. WE ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO
REGISTERED OPPOSITION, BUT I'LL
ASK, IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO
COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NO ONE, NO
ONE LINING UP TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION? WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO DÍAS. QUESTIONS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. NO QUESTIONS.
I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS. IT IS
TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT TO BE
VIGILANT ABOUT INVASIVE SPECIES.
I'M SORRY TO HEAR IT'S NOT
COVERED BY CROP INSURANCE. SO
AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK TO
BE AT ADDED AS A COAUTHOR, I
REALLY APPLAUD THIS EFFORT TO BE
PROACTIVE AND MITIGATE WHAT WE
CAN AHEAD OF TIME. SO THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YOU DO HAVE A Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AND THERE IS A
MOTION. AND A SECOND, I
ABSOLUTELY WILL JOIN YOU AS A
COAUTHOR, IT WAS VERY PROUD THAT
IN OUR AG COMMITTEE, WE HAD
UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,
AND I THINK EVERYONE WAS A
COAUTHOR OF THE BILL. AFTER
THAT, AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. OKAY. I'LL ASK ROLL CALL,
PLEASE. ITEM 12 AB 2827 REYES
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. GARCIA I
HOOVER. CONLEY. CONLEY I
MCKINNEY. MCKINNEY I PAPPIN
PAPPIN I REYES I REYES I TO. WE
HAVE FIVE VOTES. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE
ANOTHER AUTHOR IN THE ROOM. AND
SO I'LL ASK, WHO'S NEXT HERE?
MISS WILSON. WILSON. WILSON.
WILSON WILSON. WILSON LIKE MY,
LOVELY TESTIMONY. PEOPLE ARE
OUTSIDE, FOLLOWED BY MISS PELLER
. THANK YOU. YOU GIVE ME TWO
SECONDS. WE WERE WALKING IN.
SEE? THEY'RE ABOUT TO LOSE THEIR
TURN. WE'RE ABOUT TO GO TO MISS
FAIRLAWN. I THINK IF THEY DON'T
WALK IN, I'M READY. ALL RIGHT. I
MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE UP MY SEAT.
THE DOOR IS STILL OPEN. ARE THEY
COMING IN? OKAY. I'M LIKE. I'M
LIKE. I'M LIKE. I WALKED RIGHT
BY HIM. I THOUGHT THEY WERE
COMING IN. I'M SORRY. NO. IT'S
OKAY. OH, YEAH. OVER HERE. THANK
YOU. HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
OKAY. WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR
MISS PELLERIN. I DON'T HAVE MY,
NOTES ON MY EMAIL. THERE WE GO.
WE HAVE TO WAIT ALL RIGHT,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER PELLERIN, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. YOU GUYS COULD
STAY. YOU COULD TESTIFY FROM MY
PHONE. OKAY OKAY. HELLO THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB
2513 IN ORDER TO PREVENT
EXCESSIVE EXPOSURE TO NITROGEN
DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE,
BENZENE, TÍNH, AND OTHER
CARCINOGENIC BYPRODUCTS THAT
CAUSE HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS, AB
2513 WILL REQUIRE CONSUMER
WARNING LABELS FOR ALL NEW GAS
STOVES SOLD IN CALIFORNIA. THE
LABELS WILL INFORM CONSUMERS OF
THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH GAS
STOVES AND OVEN APPLIANCES. THIS
WILL ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED
VIGILANCE IN INSTALLING AND
PROPER USE OF GAS STOVES IN
ORDER TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPOSURE.
SIMILARLY BY MAKING THIS
INFORMATIVE INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS AT THE
POINT OF SALE, IT WILL HELP THE
PURCHASER MAKE MORE INFORMED
DECISIONS. AB 2513 WOULD REQUIRE
THAT THE LABEL WILL INSTRUCT ON
PROPER VENTILATION INSTALLATION
TO ALLOW FOR EXHAUST OF ALL
HARMFUL GASES. UNDERSTANDING OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF VENTING THE
FUMES THAT INITIALLY LEADS TO
THIS HAZARD. JUST RUNNING A
STOVE FOR MERE MINUTES WITH POOR
VENTILATION CAN LEAD TO INDOOR
CONCENTRATIONS OF NITROGEN
DIOXIDE THAT EXCEED THE EPA'S
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
OUTDOORS. THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
HEALTH ASSOCIATION, PHYSICIANS
FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
HAVE ALL SPOKEN OUT ABOUT GAS
STOVE POLLUTION. DESPITE THE
GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE ABOUT
THE HEALTH RISKS OF GAS STOVES.
MOST OF THIS ISN'T COMMON
KNOWLEDGE. WHEN YOU GO TO THE
STORE TO PURCHASE A GAS STOVE,
THERE'S LITTLE TO SUGGEST THE
EXTENT OF THE HEALTH ISSUES
INVOLVED WITH APPLIANCES. WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IS DOCTOR ROB
JACKSON, PROFESSOR AT STANFORD
UNIVERSITY, TO TESTIFY AS AN
EXPERT WITNESS ABOUT HIS
RESEARCH ON GAS STOVES. AND
DOCTOR BRETT ANDREWS WITH
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. I GO FIRST.
OKAY DEAR CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF, THANK YOU FOR
THE CHANCE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2513. I'M ROB JACKSON, A
STANFORD SCIENTIST AND CHAIR OF
THE GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, AN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP THAT TRACKS
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
WORLDWIDE. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED
ARE MY OWN. MY GROUP HAS SPENT
DECADES MEASURING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS FROM HOMES AND
BUILDINGS. WE ALSO MEASURE HOW
MUCH NITROGEN DIOXIDE, CARBON
MONOXIDE. AND THIS YEAR, FOR THE
FIRST TIME EVER, BENZENE FORM IN
THE FLAMES OF GAS AND PROPANE
STOVES WHEN PEOPLE COOK. THE EPA
CLASSIFIES NITROGEN DIOXIDE AS A
TRIGGER FOR ASTHMA, COUGHING AND
WHEEZING. IT CLASSIFIES BENZENE
AS A KNOWN HUMAN CARCINOGEN. GAS
AND PROPANE STOVES EMIT
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF ALL THREE
POLLUTANTS NAMED IN THE BILL.
THAT'S WHY THE BILL IS
APPROPRIATE. BUT ELECTRIC STOVES
EMIT NONE. YOUR CHOICE OF FUEL,
NOT THE FOOD YOU COOK, DICTATES
HOW MUCH OF THE POLLUTANTS
YOU'LL BREATHE. THE
CONCENTRATIONS WE MEASURE FROM
GAS AND PROPANE SOMETIMES LEAD
TO DANGEROUS LEVELS FOR HOURS,
NOT JUST IN KITCHENS, BUT IN
BEDROOMS DOWN THE HALL WHERE OUR
CHILDREN SLEEP. AND WE SEE
DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS
CONCENTRATIONS BOTH WITH AND
WITHOUT VENT HOODS ON.
VENTILATION HELPS, OF COURSE,
BUT RESEARCH SHOWS THAT FEWER
THAN A THIRD OF PEOPLE USE THEIR
HOODS. OUR WORK, AND THAT OF
BRETT SINGER AND OTHERS, ALSO
SHOWS THAT ACTUAL HOODS IN
PEOPLE'S HOMES, NOT HOODS AND
TEST KITCHENS AND LABORATORIES,
REDUCED LEVELS OF POLLUTION ONLY
MODESTLY ABOUT ONE THIRD ON
AVERAGE. THEY DON'T ELIMINATE
RISK, AND MANY AREN'T HELPFUL AT
ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEND
POLLUTION OUTDOORS. MY SON HAD
ASTHMA. I'LL NEVER KNOW WHETHER
HIS ASTHMA WAS CAUSED BY OUR GAS
STOVE, BUT BASED ON MY RESEARCH,
I WOULD NEVER HAVE A GAS STOVE
IN MY HOME TODAY. EVERY OUNCE OF
EXTRA POLLUTION MAKES HEALTH
PROBLEMS MORE LIKELY. CONSUMERS
NEED THE INFORMATION IN AB 2513
AND YOU SHOULD PASS THE BILL.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M BRETT
ANDREWS. I'M A PRACTICING
NEUROLOGIST AND WAS ASSOCIATE
CHIEF OF NEUROLOGY AT KAISER
PERMANENTE OAKLAND THROUGH LAST
YEAR. I AM REPRESENTING MY OWN
OPINION. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY ON
BEHALF OF 23 2513, THERE ARE
MANY DECADES OF RESEARCH ON THE
ASSOCIATED HEALTH HARMS FROM
INDOOR AIR EMISSIONS FROM GAS
STOVES. FROM THIS RESEARCH, WE
KNOW THAT GAS STOVES EMIT A WIDE
RANGE OF POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING
THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE, CARBON
MONOXIDE AND BENZENE. IN THIS
BILL, WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH
INCREASED DISEASE AND MORTALITY.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT CURRENT
CHILDHOOD ASTHMA IS INCREASED
42% BY THE ASSOCIATION WITH GAS
STOVE USE IN THEIR HOME.
RESEARCH ALSO TELLS US THAT
EXPOSURE TO INCREASED LEVELS OF
NITROGEN DIOXIDE, SPECIFICALLY,
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER
DISEASES LIKE LUNG DEVELOPMENT,
CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE, POOR BIRTH
OUTCOMES, DECREASED BRAIN
FUNCTION AND DEMENTIA, HEART
DISEASE, STROKE, AND PREMATURE
DEATH THAT INFANTS AND CHILDREN
ARE MORE VULNERABLE TO THESE
EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION DUE TO
FASTER BREATHING RATES, LUNG
SURFACE AREA VERSUS THEIR BODY
WEIGHTS, AND THEIR INCREASED
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. ALSO, THAT
CARBON MONOXIDE AND NITROGEN
DIOXIDE EMISSION LEVELS ARE
HIGHEST FOR APARTMENT DWELLERS
OVER HOMEOWNERS DUE TO LESS
SPACE. ALSO THAT POPULATIONS OF
LOW INCOME AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED
AS THEY LIVE MORE OFTEN IN
APARTMENTS, AND BECAUSE THEY
OFTEN DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO
RANGE HOODS THAT EXHAUST
OUTDOORS AND AS WELL, PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND LOW INCOME LIVE MORE
OFTEN IN LOCATIONS WITH UNSAFE
OUTSIDE AIR POLLUTION LEVELS.
INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION
ARE ADDITIVE AS ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH, AS THERE
ARE NO REQUIRED GAS STOVE
EMISSIONS OR VENTILATION SAFETY
STANDARDS IN CALIFORNIA, THIS
LABELING LABELING BILL WOULD
PROVIDE AT LEAST SOME HEALTH
PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS. THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, AND MANY HEALTH
CONCERNED ORGANIZATIONS STRONGLY
SUPPORT AB 2513 FOR A HEALTHIER
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK THOSE WHO
WANT TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
POSITION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
NAME ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
THANK YOU. PERFECT. VANESSA
FORSYTHE IN SUPPORT CLEANER
EARTH FOR KIDS. CLIMATE HEALTH
NOW FAMILIES ADVOCATING FOR
CHEMICAL TOXIC SAFETY.
GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION IN NORTH
COUNTY. CLIMATE ACTION CHANGE
ALLIANCE. INTERFAITH COALITION
FOR EARTH JUSTICE. NORTH COUNTY
EQUITY AND JUSTICE. THANK YOU.
CHEN ENGSTROM, WITH CALPIRG
PROUD SPONSOR OF THE BILL, ALSO
ASKED TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR THE
COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR. MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. PRISCILLA,
KUDOS HERE ON BEHALF OF ALAMEDA
STOP WASTE IN SUPPORT. AARON
WOOLLEY, ON BEHALF OF SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT.
LARA GUILLUM WITH BREAST CANCER
PREVENTION PARTNERS AND SUPPORT.
DILLONLIAM ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP IN SUPPORT AND A BANANA
SLUG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANA
CHICO CORNELL ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND JUSTICE
AND FULL SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THOSE WISHING TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD,
FOR A MINUTE. IS YOUR WINDOW?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL FOUR
MINUTES. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES?
YEAH, WHEREVER YOU LIKE. OKAY
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS JACOB CASSIDY. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF HOME
APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS. AHEM
REPRESENTS OVER 160 COMPANIES
THAT MANUFACTURE MAJOR PORTABLE
FLOOR CARE APPLIANCES, AS WELL
AS THE INDUSTRY SUPPLIERS. AHEM,
IS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO AB 2513.
I'LL REFER YOU TO OUR FULL
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN ADDITION TO
OTHER MATERIALS THAT WE'VE
SUBMITTED, AND NOT TAKE UP TOO
MUCH OF MY TIME REITERATING
WHAT'S IN THAT. I DID WANT TO
ADDRESS A FEW KEY THINGS THAT
THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THOSE, ONE
IS A MISNOMER THAT, GAS STOVES
DO NOT CARRY A CURRENT WARNING
LABEL. THERE IS ONE. IT IS
INCLUDED IN PROP 65 WARNINGS,
ALL GAS POWERED APPLIANCES ARE
ON THAT LIST. IN FACT, THERE IS
A FACT SHEET ON PROP 65, THAT
INCLUDES PRODUCTS AND WAYS TO
MITIGATE THE ANY OF THE HARMFUL
EFFECTS OF THE USE OF AN
APPLIANCE THAT WOULD USE GAS AS
A FUEL. SO ANY OF THE POTENTIAL
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF
GAS STOVES ARE INCLUDED THERE. I
DO WE DO FIND IT PECULIAR THAT
THIS LEGISLATION TARGETS ONLY
GAS, COOKING APPLIANCES, WHICH
AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES,
ALL COOKING RELEASES PARTICULATE
MATTER PM 2.5 THROUGH THE
BURNING OF OILS, GASES, FATS,
BUT HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
JUST GAS STOVES. SO IF WE WANT
TO TALK ABOUT GAS STOVES, WE
THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION. TALK ABOUT GAS
STOVES. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT
INDOOR AIR QUALITY. THEN LET'S
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. THÀNH,
LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORIES
RECENTLY DID A STUDY THAT THE
CEC USED WHEN IT REVIEWED ITS
BUILDING CODES. AND THEY SAID
THAT, INCREASED VENTILATION WAS
A WAY TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS,
SO MITIGATING THE RISK FROM
AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS, COOKING
OR OTHERWISE, ADDITIONALLY, THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL REALLY
DO ATTEMPT TO MAKE WHAT SEEMS
LIKE A FALSE CONNECTION BETWEEN
THE USE OF GAS COOKING AND RATES
OF CHILDHOOD ASTHMA. AND WHEN
ANALYZING DATA, JUST TO REMIND
THE COMMITTEE, THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION,
WE'VE HEARD A LOT, AND IT WAS
WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS OF THE LINZ STUDY,
WHICH WAS USED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN
INSTITUTE, OR RMI, IN WHICH THE
SOME OF THE STUDY'S AUTHORS SAID
IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, THAT
THE STUDY DOES NOT ASSUME OR
ESTIMATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN CHILDHOOD ASTHMA AND GAS
STOVES AS I MENTIONED, A WARNING
LABEL FOR GAS STOVES EXIST,
ABOUT 70% OF CALIFORNIA HOMES
WITH GAS STOVES WOULD HAVE HAD
THIS WARNING. AN ADDITIONAL NEW
WARNING LABEL WILL ONLY SERVE TO
CONFUSE OR CAUSE CONSUMERS TO
FURTHER IGNORE WARNING LABELS.
LABEL FATIGUE IS A REAL CONCERN,
AND WHAT WE WANT ARE FOLKS TO
HAVE A FOCUS ON THE PROPER USE
OF THEIR APPLIANCE, PROPER USE
OF VENTILATION TECHNIQUES EITHER
THROUGH A ROOM AIR CLEANER,
THROUGH RUNNING A RANGE HOOD, OR
THROUGH GETTING THE AIR TO
EXCHANGE IN THE HOUSE, IN ANY
SAFE METHOD THAT'S POSSIBLE, IF
IT'S AN ISSUE WITH THE PROP 65
WARNING, LET'S HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. IF IT'S AN ISSUE
WITH INDOOR AIR QUALITY, LET'S
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. LET'S
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BETTER
MITIGATE INDOOR AIR QUALITY OF
HOMES, EITHER THROUGH THE
IMPROVING OF THE AIR OUTSIDE OF
THE HOME, WHICH THAT IS WHAT THE
HOME WOULD BREATHE. SO WITH
THAT, I'LL STOP AGAIN, REFER YOU
TO OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS AND TAKE
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I'LL ASK THOSE WHO WANT TO
REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION ON THE
BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. HI,
MEG SNYDER, AXIOM ADVISORS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
OPPOSED. CLIFTON WILSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE WESTERN PROPANE
GAS ASSOCIATION. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO ONE
ELSE, IN THE LINE. I'LL BRING
THE MATTER BACK TO THE DAIS.
QUESTIONS OF AUTHOR AND OR
OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT WITNESSES,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, I, I JUST
WANTED TO ASK, YOU KNOW, I THINK
SOMETHING LIKE 70% OF HOMES IN
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY HAVE GAS
STOVES. I WOULD I DON'T HAVE A
STUDY IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW,
BUT IF I WERE TO PULL MY WIFE, I
COULD DEFINITELY FIGURE OUT WHAT
HER PREFERENCE IS, BUT IT
OBVIOUSLY CONSUMER PREFERENCES
ARE FOR GAS STOVES. AND SO, SO,
KIND OF CURIOUS ON, I GUESS THE
GENERAL INTENT OF THE BILL, BUT
ALSO TO THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERN, IF THIS IS ALREADY
INCLUDED ON THE PROP 65 LABEL,
IS THE INTENT OF THE BILL TO
CHANGE THOSE PREFERENCES, YOU
KNOW, I GUESS WHAT IS THE
ULTIMATE GOAL? WELL INFORMATION
IS POWER. AND THE LABEL THAT
WE'RE PROPOSING IS MORE
EXTENSIVE TO REALLY DRIVE HOME
THE FACT THAT THAT THESE GAS
STOVES EMIT GASES THAT ARE
TOXIC, THAT CAN IMPACT YOUR
CHILD OR YOURSELF IN CAUSING
ASTHMA OR BREATHING DIFFICULTIES
, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF USING
VENTILATION, WHETHER IT BE A
HOOD OR KEEPING AIR FLOWING IN
YOUR KITCHEN. I MYSELF WAS
UNAWARE THAT I NEEDED TO BE
USING THE VENT HOOD WHEN I'M
USING THE OVEN, AND SO THAT'S
SOMETHING I'VE LEARNED IN THE
COURSE OF CARRYING THIS BILL.
BUT I ALSO LIKE TO DEFER TO MY
EXPERT WITNESS FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT.
YEAH. THANKS, MIKE. THE NUMBER A
NUMBER OF GOOD POINTS THAT HAVE
COME UP. I WOULD SAY WE ARE THIS
BILL DOES ADDRESS AIR QUALITY
AND IT ADDRESSES APPROPRIATE
BECAUSE THE THREE COMPOUNDS
LISTED IN THE BILL NITROGEN
DIOXIDE, BENZENE AND CARBON
MONOXIDE DO NOT FORM WHEN FOOD
IS COOKED. THEY FORM PURELY IN
THE FLAMES. SO IT'S A IT'S A
FUEL ISSUE. AND WE'VE TESTED
THIS IN MY LAB. WE DO ALL OF OUR
TESTING BOILING WATER FOR THAT
VERY REASON. SO WE ISOLATE THE
EFFECTS OF THE FUEL FROM ANY
EFFECTS OF FOOD. WE TEST MEALS
LIKE SALMON AND BACON. THEY
PRODUCE NO BENZENE, FOR EXAMPLE,
SO IT REALLY IS ABOUT THE FUEL
IN THIS CASE, IF YOU CHANGE
FUELS, YOU ELIMINATE THE RISK.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ELIMINATE
ALL RISKS OF THESE COMPOUNDS IN
YOUR HOME. BUT FOOD IS PRIMARILY
AN ISSUE FOR PARTICULATE MATTER,
NOT FOR THE CHEMICALS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. AND JUST ONE LAST
COMMENT, IF I MAY. THE LIN PAPER
THAT WAS MENTIONED, I DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTHOR SAID,
BUT THE CONCLUSION TO THAT PAPER
OF SUMMARIZING DECADES OF
RESEARCH STATES, AND I'M QUOTING
THIS META ANALYSIS PROVIDES
QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE THAT IN
CHILDREN, GAS COOKING INCREASES
THE RISK OF ASTHMA AND INDOOR
NITROGEN DIOXIDE INCREASES THE
RISK OF CURRENT WHEEZE. SO
THAT'S THE CONCLUDING STATEMENT
FROM THE PAPER. AND THEN ONE
MORE COMMENT HERE, AS WELL, PROP
65 IS ADDRESSING CARCINOGENS,
WHICH IS THE BENZENE ISSUE. IT
DOES THIS LABELING CURRENTLY
DOES NOT ADDRESS NITROGEN
DIOXIDE OR CARBON MONOXIDE,
WHICH HAVE STRONG HEALTH EFFECTS
OR ASSOCIATIONS. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, I DO
THINK THAT RELATIONSHIP YOU
MENTIONED IN THE LIN STUDY IS,
IS OBVIOUSLY A CAUSAL
RELATIONSHIP, I BUT, YOU KNOW, I
THINK SOME OF THESE ISSUES CAN
ALSO ARE ALSO BEING ADDRESSED IN
BUILDING CODES, ENSURING THAT
WE'RE I THINK MY QUESTION IS,
TOO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF
CONSUMERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY
GOING TO THE STORE AND PICKING
OUT THEIR STOVE. THEY'RE
PURCHASING A HOME THAT ALREADY
HAS A STOVE. AND SO I GUESS I'M
NOT FULLY CONVINCED THAT THIS
THIS BILL IS GOING TO, TO, TO
REALLY GIVE CONSUMERS ANY MORE
OPTIONS OR THE INFORMATION IS
GOING TO BE PARTICULARLY
HELPFUL. SO WON'T BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. I'M
SORRY QUESTIONS. ON PAGE ONE OF
THE ANALYSIS IT GIVES THE
LANGUAGE FOR THE WARNING IS THAT
CORRECT? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. HOW
DOES THAT COMPARE WITH THE PROP
65 WARNING LABEL. IS THAT FOR.
I'M SORRY. IS THAT FOR ME. YES.
OKAY. WELL THERE'S MULTIPLE
WARNINGS. THERE'S THE SHORTHAND
PROP 65 WARNING. THERE'S A
LONGER PROP 65 WARNING. THIS IS
AN EXTENSIVE WARNING, ONE THAT
IS LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE
CONSIDERING THE CLAIMS THAT ARE
MADE IN IT AND SOME ISSUES OF
FORCED SPEECH AND COMPELLED
SPEECH THAT WOULD BE MADE OF
FORCED ON MANUFACTURERS. SO
THERE CERTAINLY IS THAT, AS TO
HOW IT COMPARES, YOU KNOW, I'LL
LEAVE THAT TO THE EXPERTS ON, ON
PROP 65. THE POINT IS, IS THAT
IT IS WARRANT. IT IS OUT THERE
THAT THAT CARB ACKNOWLEDGES
THIS, THAT BUT THIS BILL FOCUSES
ON GAS COOKING, NOT OTHER GAS
APPLIANCES. WHILE CARB DOES
DISCUSS THAT AND SO DOES THE
FACT SHEET, THE PROP 65 FACT
SHEET, AND SO JUST ONE ISSUE
THAT THAT WE KEEP HEARING IS
WITH THESE OTHER, CHEMICALS THAT
COME FROM THE BURNING OF, OF, OF
GAS, BUT THAT AGAIN, WITH THIS,
THIS META ANALYSIS THAT WE KEEP
HEARING ABOUT, THE AUTHORS
ACTUALLY WROTE THAT, QUOTE,
FINDING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN
GAS COOKING AND ASTHMA IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN ASSOCIATION
BETWEEN MEASURED NÓ TWO NOX AND
ASTHMA SUGGESTS THAT GAS COOKING
MAY ACT AS A SURROGATE FOR THESE
CAUSAL VARIABLES OTHER THAN AIR
POLLUTION PRODUCED BY GAS
COMBUSTION. SO THERE THERE
REMAINS A LOT OF QUESTIONS OUT
THERE. IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AND
CLEAR CUT AS THIS. THERE IS
THANKFULLY, ALREADY A WARNING,
PROGRAM A CONSUMER FACING
WARNING AT PLAY. AND, AT THIS
POINT IT SEEMS PRETTY
SUFFICIENT, ESPECIALLY SINCE 70%
OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLDS HAVE
CHOSEN, IN SPITE OF THAT, THAT'S
IMPORTANT. MY COLLEAGUE HAS
TALKED ABOUT THAT. THERE'S ALSO
A QR CODE THAT WILL BE PUT ON
THE LABEL TO REFER, THE CONSUMER
TO THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, ON,
REGARDING INDOOR, THE INDOOR AIR
POLLUTION AND COOKING IS THAT
CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL
RIGHT. IS THERE PERHAPS YOU CAN
GIVE AN ANSWERS TO THE, THE PROP
65 WARNING AND THIS WARNING. HOW
DO THEY COMPARE? I'M NOT THE
RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. PROP 65 ADDRESSES
CARCINOGENS, THIS LABEL ADDS
NITROGEN DIOXIDE, CARBON
MONOXIDE, AND THOSE HAVE
SIGNIFICANT HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS,
INCLUDING THE VERY HIGH RATES OF
ASTHMA, WHICH ARE CONFIRMED BY
MANY PAPERS. I THINK THAT IT,
ASSUMING THE BILL IS GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD, I THINK SPEAKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION ABOUT THE
LANGUAGE, IF WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE A LABEL, AND THAT IS GOING
TO BE THE WILL OF THE
LEGISLATURE HERE, THEN I THINK
WORKING ON EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE.
THERE'S ALREADY A WARNING FOR
PROP 65, BUT THERE'S ALREADY A
WARNING THERE. YOU WANT TO
PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED WARNING?
I THINK IF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE
IS OBJECTIONABLE TO LOOK TO THE
LANGUAGE, THAT WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE. ACCURATE SO THAT THE
CONSUMER IN THE END, THAT'S WHO
WE'RE TRYING TO NOTIFY. WE WANT
THE CONSUMER TO KNOW, THESE ARE
THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
GAS STOVE, AND THESE ARE THIS IS
WHERE THE INFORMATION COMES
FROM. AND YOU MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION. DO YOU WANT TO GET THE
GAS STOVE OR DO YOU WANT TO PICK
ANOTHER WAY TO, TO HEAT YOUR
FOOD. EXACTLY, SO IF THE BILL,
MOVING AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD
, I THINK IT'LL BE IMPORTANT TO,
TO FIND THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT
YOU ALL CAN AGREE ON TO PROTECT
THE CONSUMER. WITH THAT, I WOULD
MOVE THE BILL. OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM OTHER MEMBERS?
OKAY. SEEING NO ONE RAISING
THEIR HAND. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS
THERE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, THAT
THIS HAVE A Dð PASS
RECOMMENDATION. IT GOES STRAIGHT
TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. I GIVEN
THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS
STILL, I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE
WOULD BE SOME CONTINUED DIALOG
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON THIS
ISSUE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. HAPPY TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION ON GETTING
THE RIGHT LANGUAGE. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE
INFORMED AND UNDERSTAND THE
RISKS AND HOW TO MITIGATE THOSE
RISKS BY HAVING BETTER
VENTILATION. SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. OKAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL CALL THE
QUESTION ON THE MOTION AND A
SECOND ITEM, TEN AB 2513
PELLERIN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. GARCIA.
GARCIA I HOOVER. HOOVER. NO.
CONLEY. CONLEY I MCKENNA.
MCKINNON I PAPIN. PAPIN I REYES.
REYES I TO NO. TO. NO. OKAY.
WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. WE HAVE
GOING BACK TO THE FILE ORDER. WE
HAVE MISS BAUER-KAHAN WHO HAS A
BILL TO PRESENT AND WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY MRS. WILSON. WHO
JUST LEFT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2214,
WHICH IS A JOINT EFFORT WITH ME
WITH OUR AMAZING COLLEAGUE, MISS
MCKENNA, WE ARE FACED WITH AN
URGENT AND PERVASIVE THREAT TO
BOTH OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR
HEALTH. MICROPLASTICS THE TINY
PARTICLES WHICH STUBBORNLY
RESIST DEGRADATION, HAVE BEEN
OBSERVED IN MONTEREY BAY, SAN
FRANCISCO, LAKE TAHOE, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AND ADDITIONAL
WATERWAYS. MICROPLASTICS ARE
DETECTED IN BREAST MILK, AND WE
KNOW THEY ARE GETTING TO OUR
HUMAN BODIES. THE A GLOBAL STUDY
BY WWF INTERNATIONAL FOUND THAT,
ON AVERAGE, PEOPLE COULD BE
INGESTING APPROXIMATELY FIVE
GRAMS OF PLASTIC EVERY WEEK,
EQUIVALENT TO THE WEIGHT OF A
CREDIT CARD RECOGNIZES THE
SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION. THE
OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL
MANDATED BY STATUTE, DEVELOPED A
STATEWIDE MICROPLASTIC STRATEGY.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
PUBLISHED IN 2022, OUTLINES 22
RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT
REDUCING AND MANAGING
MICROPLASTIC POLLUTION ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. AB 2214 BUILDS ON
THIS INITIATIVE BY MANDATING THE
OPC TO LEAD AN INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION GROUP TO IDENTIFY
AND RECOMMEND NECESSARY
STATUTORY CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN
THE STATEWIDE MICROPLASTICS
STRATEGY TO THE LEGISLATURE. BY
2025. THIS IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT, I INTRODUCED A BILL
LAST YEAR ON MICROPLASTICS IN
COSMETIC PRODUCTS, AND WHAT WE
FOUND WAS THERE IS TOO MANY
AGENCIES CHARGED WITH THIS SUCH
THAT NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING
ABOUT IT, AND WE NEED TO
CONSOLIDATE THAT AND MAKE SURE
WE'RE WORKING TO REMOVE
MICROPLASTICS WITH ME IN
SUPPORT. OH, LOOK, THE PEOPLE
FROM THE CHEETO BILL WERE
SITTING NEXT TO ME. WITH ME IN
SUPPORT IS ISABELLA GONZALEZ
WITH THE NATURE CONSERVANCY AND
ALLISON WALUSZEWSKI WITH FIVE
GYRES, WHICH I'M PROBABLY
PRONOUNCING WRONG. LET'S GO
FIRST. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, CHAIR GARCIA AND ESTEEMED
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ALLISON WALISZEWSKI, AND
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
PROGRAMS AT THE FIVE GYRES
INSTITUTE, A SCIENCE BASED NGO
IN SANTA MONICA THAT HAS BEEN AT
THE FOREFRONT OF PLASTIC
POLLUTION RESEARCH FOR OVER 15
YEARS. I'M HERE TO ASK AND URGE
MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR AB 2214,
INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
BAUER-KAHAN AND MACKINNON, THIS
BILL IS A CRUCIAL STEP IN
COMBATING THE PRESSING ISSUE OF
MICROPLASTIC POLLUTION, WHICH
THREATENS OUR ENVIRONMENT,
WILDLIFE AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
MICRO PLASTICS STEMMING FROM
VARIOUS SOURCES SUCH AS DURABLE
GOODS, PACKAGING, SYNTHETIC
TEXTILES, PRE-PRODUCTION PLASTIC
PELLETS CALLED NURDLES, AND
INTENTIONAL ADDITIVES LIKE
MICROBEADS ARE WREAKING HAVOC ON
OUR ECOSYSTEMS. EACH YEAR. THESE
TINY FRAGMENTS, AMOUNTING TO
230,000 METRIC TONS GLOBALLY,
FIND THEIR WAY INTO OUR WATER
SYSTEMS, POSING SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES DUE TO THEIR UBIQUITY
AND PERSISTENCE. AB 2214
PROPOSES A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH TO TACKLE THIS
CROSS-SECTORAL CHALLENGE. IT
MANDATES THAT THE OCEAN
PROTECTION COUNCIL SPEARHEAD AN
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION GROUP
TASKED WITH IDENTIFYING AND
RECOMMENDING STATUTORY CHANGES
TO IMPLEMENT THE STATEWIDE
MICROPLASTICS STRATEGY. THIS
STRATEGY, COMPRISING OF 22
RECOMMENDATIONS, OFFERS A
ROADMAP TO REDUCE AND MANAGE THE
MICROPLASTICS CRISIS EFFECTIVELY
. ONE NOTABLE ASPECT OF THIS
BILL IS A DIRECTIVE FOR OPC TO
EVALUATE EXPANDING THE STATEWIDE
MICROBEAD BAN TO INCLUDE ALL
MICROPLASTICS INTENTIONALLY
ADDED TO CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
ROUGHLY 25% OF COSMETIC PRODUCTS
CONTAIN ADDED MICROPLASTICS OF
SOME TYPE, AND A SINGLE USE OF A
PRODUCT CAN RELEASE UP TO TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF MICROBEADS DOWN
THE DRAIN. THIS MICROBEAD
POLLUTION IS DIFFICULT TO
MANAGE, AS MICROBEADS IN
CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE 40% HARDER
TO REMOVE DURING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROCESSES THAN OTHER
TYPES OF MICROPLASTICS,
INCREASING THE RELEASE INTO
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS.
FURTHERMORE, THIS BILL
EMPHASIZES PROMOTING THE SALE
AND USE OF ENERGY STAR CONDENSER
DRYERS AND WASHING MACHINES
EQUIPPED WITH MICROFIBER
FILTERS, HIGHLIGHTING A
PROACTIVE APPROACH TO TACKLING
MICROFIBER POLLUTION AT ITS
SOURCE. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT
WASHING MACHINE FILTERS CAN
CAPTURE 80% OF MICROFIBERS THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE ENTER THE
WASTEWATER STREAM. INCREASING
THE USE OF THESE FILTERS WOULD
GREATLY REDUCE MICROFIBER
EMISSIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
CHAIR GARCIA AND ESTEEMED
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, I ASK
YOU TO PLEASE VOTE AYE ON AB
2214. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON PLASTIC POLLUTION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL KEEP
IT SHORT AND SWEET HERE,
ISABELLA GONZALEZ POTTER,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR WITH THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY, SIMILARLY
PLEASED TO BE SUPPORTING AB
2214, JUST TO SHARE SOME QUICK
FACTS YOU MIGHT FIND
INTERESTING, IN 2020, THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY PARTNERED WITH UC
SANTA BARBARA TO QUANTIFY THE
AMOUNT OF MICROFIBERS THAT ARE
IN CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT. THE
STUDY FOUND THAT IN 2019, AN
ESTIMATED 4000 METRIC TONS, OR
13.3 QUADRILLION FIBERS YES,
QUADRILLION WITH A QUÊ WERE
RELEASED INTO CALIFORNIA'S
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. THAT NUMBER
REPRESENTS 130,000 TIMES AS MANY
FIBERS AS THERE ARE STARS IN THE
MILKY WAY GALAXY. THAT'S FOR ONE
YEAR OR EQUIVALENT TO 80 MILLION
RUBBER DUCKIES WORTH OF PLASTIC
POLLUTING THE STATE EVERY YEAR.
NOTHING LIKE A RUBBER DUCKY FOR
SCALE. HERE SO, AS YOU KNOW,
MICROPLASTIC POLLUTION POSES A
MULTIFACETED CHALLENGE THAT DOES
REQUIRE A COORDINATED ACTION
ACROSS VARIOUS SECTORS,
JURISDICTIONS, AND AGENCIES. WE
THINK THAT AB 24 AND AB 2214
ENSURES THAT CALIFORNIA'S
LEADERSHIP AT A GLOBAL LEVEL
WILL EFFECTIVELY MANAGE AND
MITIGATE THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THOSE WANTING TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT ON THE
BILL, PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. REED
ADDIS, ON BEHALF OF STORY OF
STUFF IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. HELLO. MICHAEL LEGARE, ON
BEHALF OF THE SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION AND HEAL THE BAY IN
STRONG SUPPORT. VANESSA FORSYTHE
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES
ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL TOXIC
SAFETY. GRANDPARENT FOR ACTION.
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS, CLEAN
WATER ACTION. NORTH COUNTY
EQUITY AND JUSTICE, INTERFAITH
COALITION FOR EARTH JUSTICE AND
NORTH COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE
ALLIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHRIS LICCARDO IS HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL IN SUPPORT.
MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DO WE HAVE
WITNESSES THAT WILL BE
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? OKAY SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE
AUTHOR OR THE WITNESSES, PLEASE?
WELL, I JUST THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BACK UP, AND I'M.
I'M GLAD TO BE WORKING WITH YOU.
I KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET THIS
DONE, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, MICHAEL,
PLASTICS IS A BIG PROBLEM, AS WE
LOOK AROUND AND WE SEE HOW OUR
FAMILIES, OUR KIDS. AND I LOVE
THE GRANDPARENTS FOR. I DON'T
REMEMBER WHAT YOU GOT TO JOIN
GRANDPARENTS. I'M A GRANDPARENT
NOW, SO I'M JOINING, PARENTS
AGAINST MICROPLASTICS, WE, YOU
KNOW, OUR KIDS, ARE DIGESTING
THIS STUFF. OUR PARENTS ARE
DIGESTING THIS STUFF, AND WE
WONDER WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH, SUCH
A HIGH, CASES OF CANCER. BUT WE
JUST REALLY HAVE TO COMBAT THIS,
AND I THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
DOING THIS, THIS YEAR. AND, I
JUST ASK EVERYBODY FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PARTNERSHIP, MISS MCNAIR.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE AND
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY
SEEING NONE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? PLEASE JOIN ME AND THE
GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION WITH AN
AYE VOTE. DOES HAVE A Dð PASS TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE. ITEM ITEM
FOUR AB 2214 BAUER KHN. THE
MOTION IS Dð. PASS AND RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. GARCIA
T I. HOOVER. CONNELLY CONNELLY.
AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE
PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE. REYES TO. WE
HAVE FOUR VOTES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND I KNOW YOU'LL BE
PRESENTING FILE NUMBER SIX,
WHICH IS AB 2316. THANK YOU.
LET'S BRING THE MR. GABRIEL
WITNESSES BACK. YES, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 2316 TODAY
ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUE, MR.
GABRIEL. AT THE OUTSET ASSEMBLY,
GABRIEL ASKED THAT I THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
HELPING TO CONVENE VERY
CONSTRUCTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE
MEETINGS WITH OPPOSITION
STAKEHOLDERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GABRIEL LOOKS FORWARD TO
RECEIVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM THE OPPOSITION AND IS
COMMITTED TO FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS AND GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ISSUES
IDENTIFIED IN THE ANALYSIS. AS
WE ALL KNOW, HE'S AN AUTHOR WHO
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK HARD
THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AB 2316 IS
A STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE THAT
WOULD PROHIBIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
CALIFORNIA FROM SERVING FOODS
CONTAINING SEVERAL HARMFUL
CHEMICALS THAT HAVE BEEN LINKED
TO SERIOUS HARMS TO CHILDREN,
INCLUDING CANCER, HYPERACTIVITY
AND OTHER NEUROBEHAVIORAL
PROBLEMS. GIVEN THESE LONG
STANDING CONCERNS, IN 2019, THE
LEGISLATURE DIRECTED THE
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
ASSESSMENT. THAT'S A MOUTHFUL TO
CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT AND
THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION
INTO THE IMPACT OF SYNTHETIC
FOOD DYES ON CHILDREN IN 2021.
AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, OHA
ISSUED A REPORT WITH CLEAR
FINDINGS. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCLUDED
THAT, QUOTE, THE CONSUMPTION OF
SYNTHETIC FOOD DYES CAN RESULT
IN HYPERACTIVITY AND OTHER NEURO
BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS IN SOME
CHILDREN. END QUOTE. THE REPORT
ALSO FOUND THAT CURRENT FDA
APPROVAL OF SYNTHETIC FOOD DYES
IS BASED ON 35 TO 70 YEAR OLD
STUDIES THAT WERE NOT DESIGNED
TO DETECT THE TYPES OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH EFFECTS THAT
HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN CHILDREN,
AND THAT NEWER STUDIES INDICATE
THAT THE CURRENT FDA GUIDELINES
MAY NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT
CHILDREN. THE STUDY ALSO NOTED
THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE
PERCENTAGE OF AMERICAN CHILDREN
DIAGNOSED WITH ADHD IN RECENT
YEARS. THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ABOUT
THE HARM CAUSED BY THESE
CHEMICALS IS CONSISTENT WITH
THAT OF MANY OTHER NATIONS
AROUND THE WORLD, MANY OF WHICH
HAVE BANNED, RESTRICTED OR
REQUIRED THESE COLORING AGENTS
TO INCLUDE STRICT WARNING
LABELING REQUIREMENTS. FOR
EXAMPLE, TITANIUM DIOXIDE, A
COLOR AGENT USED IN SUNSCREENS,
COSMETICS, PAINTS, AND PLASTICS,
HAS BEEN BANNED FOR USE IN ALL
FOODS IN THE EU. LIKEWISE, THE
EU RESTRICTS THE USE OF
SYNTHETIC DYES AND REQUIRES ANY
FOODS THAT INCLUDE THEM TO CARRY
PRECISE LABEL, WARNING PARENTS
THAT THE PRODUCT CAN CAUSE HARM
TO CHILDREN. UNFORTUNATELY,
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF ACTION AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THE US IS A
GLOBAL OUTLIER AND REMAINS FAR
BEHIND THE REST OF THE WORLD ON
ISSUES OF FOOD SAFETY, AB 2316
WOULD TAKE A MODEST STEP FORWARD
IN CORRECTING THE IMBALANCE BY
ENSURING THAT OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DO NOT SERVE FOODS WITH
CHEMICALS THAT CAN HARM CHILDREN
AND INTERFERE WITH THEIR ABILITY
TO LEARN. TO BE CLEAR, THIS BILL
WILL NOT RESULT IN A BAN ON ANY
FOODS IN CALIFORNIA, NOR WILL IT
RESULT IN ANY PRODUCTS COMING
OFF THE SHELF. ON THE CONTRARY,
IT WILL SIMPLY ENCOURAGE
COMPANIES TO MAKE VERY MINOR
MODIFICATIONS TO FOODS SOLD TO
OUR SCHOOLS TO REMOVE THE
HARMFUL CHEMICALS AND REPLACE
THEM WITH SAFER ALTERNATIVE
INGREDIENTS ALREADY USED IN
EUROPE AND SO MANY OTHER PLACES
AROUND THE WORLD. THIS SIMPLE
CHANGE CAN MAKE A HUGE
DIFFERENCE, PARTICULARLY FOR OUR
STUDENTS WHO STRUGGLE WITH ADHD
AND OTHER LEARNING DIFFERENCES.
AS ANYONE WHO HAS WATCHED A
CHILD STRUGGLE KNOWS, IT MAKES
NO SENSE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH
THERAPIES AND INTERVENTIONS IN
THE CLASSROOM AND THEN EXPOSE
THEM TO CHEMICALS AT LUNCH THAT
FURTHER EXACERBATE THEIR
CHALLENGES. FINALLY IT IS
IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
MORE THAN 95% OF THE PRODUCTS
SERVED IN OUR SCHOOLS ARE
ALREADY FREE FROM THESE
CHEMICALS, AND THEN A NUMBER OF
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AROUND THE
STATE, INCLUDING MR. GABRIEL'S
OWN LOS ANGELES UNIFIED, HAVE
ALREADY STOPPED SERVING FOODS
THAT INCLUDE THESE HARMFUL
ADDITIVES. THIS COMMON SENSE
MEASURE IS SUPPORTED BY BROAD
COALITION OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND CANCER
PREVENTION ORGANIZATIONS THAT
INCLUDES CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS, SEIU, AND
THE LA COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP, AND THOMAS GALLIGAN, PHD,
WITH THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST. GREAT.
THANK YOU, EWG STRONGLY SUPPORTS
AB 2316. THESE DYES WERE LAST
APPROVED BY THE FDA 40 TO 50
YEARS AGO, LONG BEFORE STUDIES
COULD DETECT THEIR EFFECTS ON
BEHAVIOR. AND NOW THE
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FROM
CALIFORNIA'S STATE SCIENTISTS
SHOWS THAT THESE DYES ARE MAKING
IT HARDER FOR SOME OF OUR KIDS
TO LEARN. EVEN THE FDA HAS
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THESE DYES CAN
HARM OUR KIDS. YET DESPITE THIS
EVIDENCE OF HARM, THE FDA HAS
NOT FLAGGED THESE CHEMICALS FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND HAS NOT
ASKED CONGRESS FOR MONEY TO
CONDUCT THESE REVIEWS. THIS IS
SADLY NOTHING NEW FOR THE FDA,
WHICH ROUTINELY FAILS TO
RECONSIDER THE SAFETY OF
CHEMICALS DESPITE NEW EVIDENCE
OF HARM, AND HAS SINCE 2000
ALLOWED 99% OF THE NEW FOOD
CHEMICALS TO BE APPROVED BY THE
CHEMICAL COMPANIES, NOT BY THE
FDA. BEFORE I JOINED EWG, I WAS
THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR THE CONSUMER BRANDS
ASSOCIATION, SO I KNOW THAT
COMPANIES CAN PRODUCE THESE
FOODS WITHOUT THESE SYNTHETIC
DYES. AFTER OTHER COUNTRIES
PASSED LAWS TO REQUIRE WARNINGS,
COMPANIES QUICKLY REPLACE THESE
DYES WITH NATURAL COLORS.
CONSIDER THESE TWO BOXES OF
FROOT LOOPS, THIS ONE MADE IN
THE UNITED STATES WITH CHEMICALS
. THIS ONE MADE IN CANADA WITH
NATURAL COLORS. THE GOOD NEWS IS
WE DO NOT NEED TO REFORMULATE
FOODS LIKE THESE TO OFFER OUR
KIDS FOOD WITHOUT DYES. AT
SCHOOL, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
FOODS OFFERED IN OUR SCHOOLS DO
NOT HAVE THESE SYNTHETIC COLORS.
AS YOU HEARD OF THE MORE THAN
10,000 FOODS OFFERED THROUGH THE
LUNCH LINE, ONLY ABOUT 400 OR SO
HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THESE
SYNTHETIC COLORS. OF THESE 1600
FOODS OFFERED THROUGH THE A LA
CARTE LINE, ONLY ABOUT 60 OR SO
HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THESE COLORS
. OUR SCHOOL FOOD PROFESSIONALS
HAVE PLENTY OF OPTIONS TO WORK
WITH WITHOUT THESE DYES IN EVERY
CATEGORY. LET'S STOP WAITING FOR
THE FDA. LET'S DO WHAT'S BEST
FOR OUR KIDS AND END THE USE OF
THESE TOXIC CHEMICALS IN FOOD
OFFERED AT SCHOOL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR GARCIA AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY.
TÌM COMMITTEE. I'M THOMAS
GALLIGAN, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST
FOR FOOD ADDITIVES AND
SUPPLEMENTS AT THE CENTER FOR
SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
I HAVE A PHD IN BIOMEDICAL
SCIENCES WITH A FOCUS ON
TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH. THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST STRONGLY
SUPPORTS AB 2316. SYNTHETIC FOOD
DYES CAN CAUSE OR EXACERBATE
NEUROBEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS IN SOME
KIDS. SOME CHILDREN. THAT'S A
VERBATIM QUOTE FROM THE STATE'S
OWN EXPERTS AT THE CALIFORNIA
EPA. CAL EPA REACHED THIS
CONCLUSION AFTER PERFORMING A
PEER REVIEWED SYSTEM REVIEW OF
THE EVIDENCE, WHICH INCLUDED 27
HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS AS WELL AS
MANY ANIMAL AND IN VITRO
STUDIES. IN ITS REPORT,
PUBLISHED IN 2021, CAL EPA
RAISED CONCERNS THAT SIX OF THE
COLORS LISTED IN THIS BILL COULD
REDUCE SOCIAL AND ACADEMIC
SUCCESS. COLOR ADDITIVES THAT
CAN DIRECTLY IMPEDE ACADEMIC
SUCCESS SIMPLY HAVE NO PLACE IN
SCHOOL FOODS. THE SEVENTH
SUBSTANCE IN THIS BILL, TITANIUM
DIOXIDE, ALSO HAS NO PLACE IN
SCHOOL FOODS. THE EUROPEAN FOOD
SAFETY AUTHORITY CONCLUDED THAT
TITANIUM DIOXIDE CAN NO LONGER
BE CONSIDERED SAFE WHEN USED AS
A FOOD ADDITIVE, DUE TO EVIDENCE
THAT IT CAN POTENTIALLY
ACCUMULATE IN THE BODY AND
DAMAGE DNA, AMONG OTHER EFFECTS.
BASED ON THAT CONCLUSION,
TITANIUM DIOXIDE WAS BANNED FROM
FOOD IN THE EU IN 2022. TITANIUM
DIOXIDE AND THE SIX DYES TO BE
PROHIBITED IN SCHOOL FOODS BY
THIS BILL ARE COLOR ADDITIVES
THAT OFFER NO NUTRITIONAL
BENEFITS, AND HAVE NO BENEFIT ON
FOOD SAFETY. THEY FUNCTION
SIMPLY TO MAKE FOODS VISUALLY
VISUALLY APPEALING. AS A
MARKETING TOOL FOR THE FOOD
INDUSTRY. WITH OVER 3 MILLION
CALIFORNIAN KIDS PARTICIPATING
IN SCHOOL LUNCHES DAILY AND 1.7
MILLION PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL
BREAKFASTS, IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT
CALIFORNIA ELIMINATE THESE
UNSAFE AND UNNECESSARY COLOR
ADDITIVES FROM SCHOOL FOODS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL ASK THOSE WISHING TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. MELISSA ROMERO,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS SAM NASH, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND SUPPORT.
VANESSA FORSYTHE SPEAKING FOR
THESE ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT
FAMILIES ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL
TOXICITY, SAFETY. GRANDPARENTS
FOR ACTION NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
AND JUSTICE, NORTH COUNTY
CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE,
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR EARTH
JUSTICE, AND CLEAN EARTH FOR
KIDS, AND ALSO NORTH COUNTY.
YEAH, I DID SAY THAT ONE. SORRY
TOO LONG. A LIST. THE
GRANDPARENTS, ANNA CHICO CORNELL
ON BEHALF OF ALLIANCE OF NURSES
FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS AND THE
CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND JUSTICE
IN SUPPORT. HELLO, LEAH JONES,
ON BEHALF OF A VOICE FOR CHOICE
ADVOCACY AND FULL SUPPORT. THANK
YOU PRISCILLA. KUDOS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF KAT
TAYLOR IN SUPPORT. JANET
NOODLEMAN, AS A MOM OF A
DAUGHTER WITH ADHD AND SUPPORT
AND ON BEHALF OF BREAST CANCER
PREVENTION PARTNERS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE OKAY. SEEING NO ONE,
I'LL ASK THE WITNESSES THAT WILL
BE TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. I HEARD
THEY WEREN'T GOING TO OPPOSE
ANYMORE BECAUSE I WAS
PRESENTING. NO. SO NO. THAT'S
100% FAIR. BUT I HERE WITH MY
FRIEND MR. FABER. PLEASE
PROCEED. MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JOHN HEWITT, ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER BRANDS ASSOCIATION.
THÀNH, YES. MR. FABER AND I WORK
TOGETHER AT GROCERY
MANUFACTURERS, BACK IN THE DAY.
SO ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER
BRANDS ASSOCIATION, OUR MEMBERS,
THERE'S SEVERAL UNRESOLVED
ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE WITH THE BILL.
WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS, BUT THOUGHT I'D AT
LEAST ENUMERATE SOME OF THOSE AT
THIS MOMENT. MR. CHAIR, FIRST OF
ALL, THE SCOPE, FOR INSTANCE,
FOOD ON THE TRAY IS IT IS IT ALL
IN? IS IT LIMITED, TO WHAT'S
PREPARED, DOES IT COVER USDA
COMMODITY ITEMS? WHAT ABOUT THE
NON CORE MEALS SUCH AS, WHAT IF
A COACH WANTS TO PREPARE A
PREGAME MEAL OUT OF THEIR OWN
POCKET AND SERVE IT ON SCHOOL,
FOR THEIR FOR THE TEAM, WHAT
ABOUT REWARDS FOR ACADEMIC
ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT A TEACHER
MAY, AS WE ALL KNOW, TEACHERS DO
PURCHASE THINGS OUT OF THEIR OWN
POCKET MANY TIMES, OR THE SCHOOL
MAY PROVIDE ACADEMIC REWARDS OR
INCENTIVES, SO THAT'S SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS ON SCOPE WITH
RESPECT TO TIMING, CURRENTLY THE
BILL GOES INTO EFFECT AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE UPCOMING 20
2425 SCHOOL YEAR, THAT'S PRETTY
QUICK. IT'S ON US, WHAT DO WE DO
WITH THE NUMBER OF THE FOODS
THAT THAT ARE IN THE STOCK ON
THE SHELF, SO ON AND SO FORTH,
AND THEN LASTLY, THE UNRESOLVED
ISSUE AND CONCERNS WITH THE BILL
, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO DO WITH THE
SCIENCE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THERE'S NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP
THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT, TO MY FRIENDS UP
HERE, WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION, WHAT WAS HANDED OUT BY
THE SERGEANT. THANK YOU, YOU'LL
SEE, IS A IS A CHART AND THE
CHART GENERALLY LOOKS LIKE THE
ONE THAT APPEARS IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF IT,
THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE STORY. AND, YOU
KNOW, IT'S NOT TO NOT TO
PLAGIARIZE PAUL HARVEY, BUT THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY, THE
REST OF THE STORY, IF YOU WILL,
FDA HAS LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED
AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE IN THE
MIDDLE COLUMN THERE, BOTH IN
2011, 2019, ALSO THE WORLD
HEALTH ORGANIZATION JOINT EXPERT
ON, ON COMMITTEE ON FOOD
ADDITIVES HAS REVIEWED IT. WE'VE
PUT THOSE DATES AND THE
CONCLUSIONS IN THERE. IF I COULD
QUOTE BRIEFLY. MR. CHAIR, A
COUPLE OF THE CONCLUSIONS FROM
THE 2011 FDA STUDY WHERE THEY
REVIEWED THE PUBLISHED
LITERATURE. FDA CONCLUDED NO
CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EXPOSURE TO COLOR ADDITIVES AND
HYPERACTIVITY IN CHILDREN IN THE
GENERAL POPULATION. IN 2011, THE
FDA CONVENED THE FOOD ADVISORY
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE, MADE THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE RELEVANT
SCIENTIFIC DATA DID NOT SUPPORT
A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN
CONSUMPTION OF CERTIFIED COLORS
AND THE FOOD AND HYPERACTIVITY
AND OTHER PROBLEMATIC BEHAVIORS
IN CHILDREN, OUT OF RESPECT FOR
THE COMMITTEE, I WON'T CONTINUE
TO READ WHAT'S ON THERE, BUT
YOU'LL SEE SIMILAR CONCLUSION
FOR 2019, AND THEN I INCLUDED
JUST A SENTENCE THERE, ON THE
FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN WITH THE
YEAR THAT THE, THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION, ACTUALLY LOOKED AT
THESE. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND STOP
THERE. MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
CHAMBER WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW
THINGS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ADAM
WRIGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. I WANT TO
BEGIN BY THANKING THE CHAIR FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR ALL OF ITS WORK.
SO FAR. WE STILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL, I WANT TO TAKE A STEP
BACK. I MEAN, LAST YEAR, THIS
AUTHOR, INTRODUCED AB 418. IT
HAD FIVE COLOR ADDITIVE BANDS.
CALCHAMBER OPPOSED THE TITANIUM
DIOXIDE BECAUSE THE SCIENCE WAS
OVERWHELMINGLY AROUND THE WORLD.
AND I'LL GO INTO THAT, CONCLUDED
SAFE. THE OUTLIER IS ACTUALLY
THE EU, WHICH IRONICALLY, THE EU
BANNED IT FOR FOOD AND THEN HAS
NOW STRUGGLING. IT IS IN 91,000
MEDICINES AND THEY ARE ALLOWING
THAT. BUT FOR SOME REASON IT'S
DANGEROUS IN FOOD. IF YOU LOOK
AT THE UNITED KINGDOM'S FOOD
STANDARDS AGENCY HEALTH CANADA,
AND WE BROUGHT FRUIT LOOPS FROM
CANADA. SO THE HEALTH CANADIANS,
IN 2022 LOOKED AT TITANIUM
DIOXIDE. THEY SAID WHILE THE
CONCLUSIONS OF THE EU EXPERT
WERE CONSIDERED IN THE REPORT,
HEALTH CANADA DID ITS OWN
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE
AVAILABLE SCIENCE. THIS INCLUDED
EVALUATING NEW SCIENTIFIC DATA
THAT ADDRESSED THE UNCERTAINTY
IDENTIFIED BY THE EU EXPERT
PANEL. THEY SAID THERE IS,
QUOTE, NO EVIDENCE OF CANCER OR
OTHER ADVERSE EFFECTS IN MICE OR
RATS, NO CHANGES IN DNA, NO
ADVERSE EFFECTS ON REPRODUCTION,
DEVELOPMENT, IMMUNE,
GASTROINTESTINAL,
GASTROINTESTINAL OR NERVOUS
SYSTEMS. IN SUMMARY, CANADIAN
FOOD DIRECTORATE'S POSITION IS
THAT THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE
FOOD ADDITIVE TIO2 IS A CONCERN
FOR HUMAN HEALTH. THIS IS THE
SAME CONCLUSION THAT FOOD
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND CAME TO US. FDA IN 2024
CAME TO AND AGAIN, THE EUROPEAN
MEDICINES AGENCY IS APPROVING
TIO2 IN 91,000 MEDICINES AGAIN
LAST YEAR THIS TITANIUM DIOXIDE
WAS IN AB 418. THE AUTHOR
HIMSELF STRUCK IT. WE FIND NO
CREDIBLE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THE
GENOTOXICITY THAT THE EU HAS,
CLAIMING, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
INCONSISTENCIES IN THAT POLICY.
CALIFORNIA AND THE FDA HAVE FULL
AUTHORITY, FULL STAFF SCIENTISTS
TO EVALUATE THE FOOD SAFETY. AND
AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS NOTED, THEY
HAVE DONE SO RECENTLY THIS IDEA
THAT IT'S 40, 50 YEARS OLD. WE
STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE
SCIENCE IS NOT THERE TO BAN IT.
AND WE ADD FOOD COLOR ADDITIVES,
AS NOTED BY THE PROPONENTS,
BECAUSE FOOD AND ITS APPEARANCE
DOES MATTER TO FOLKS. SO IF
WE'RE GOING TO BAN THESE
CHEMICALS, WE REALLY NEED TO
HAVE THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
AND WE DON'T THINK IT'S THERE.
AND AS OUR CONSISTENCY SHOWED
LAST YEAR ON POSITIONING, IF THE
SCIENCE ISN'T THERE, WE DIDN'T
OPPOSE COLOR ADDITIVE BANS. WE
ARE TARGETED ON OUR SCIENCE DOES
NOT IT, I THINK JUSTIFY
CIRCUMVENTING STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES TO BAN IT IN THIS
PROCESS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF FOOD WASTE AND OTHER
IMPACTS THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED,
AND WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT ONE
JURISDICTIONS, EU POLICY. I
DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT. WE
SHOULDN'T OUTSOURCE IT. AND
AGAIN, SCIENCE AROUND THE WORLD
ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO IT. IN THE
CONTRARY, THAT IT'S SAFE. AND
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING WITH THE
AUTHOR TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF
THESE ISSUES. AND THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, WE'LL ASK, THOSE
WANTING REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO
PLEASE COME ALBIANI ON BEHALF OF
THE AMERICAN BEVERAGE
ASSOCIATION. THÀNH WE OPPOSE.
THANK YOU. I WANT THIS ONE TO
STICK WITH THE AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY COUNCIL. ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. KATIE
DAVY WITH THE DAIRY INSTITUTE IN
OPPOSITION. DON Kò, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO REGISTER THEIR POSITION?
OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
DÍAS. QUESTIONS LEFT. YES THANK
YOU SO MUCH, REALIZE YOU'RE NOT
THE AUTHOR OF THIS BILL, BUT I'M
GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB. YOU
HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND,
YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M NOT FULLY
AGAINST WHERE THIS BILL IS
TRYING TO GO. AND I'VE HAD THESE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR,
BUT, YOU KNOW, I AM I DO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER ACTION
THAT WE TAKE, IT IS SUPPORTED BY
THE SCIENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, A
LOT OF THE NARRATIVE HAS BEEN
ABOUT A LOT OF THESE CHEMICALS.
I IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
TITANIUM DIOXIDE IS THE ONLY
CHEMICAL THAT IS ACTUALLY BANNED
IN EUROPE, SO I WAS I WAS
WONDERING IF YOU COULD OFFER
SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT AND
WHY WE'RE INCLUDING ALL OF THESE
OTHER THINGS AS WELL. WELL, IF
IT'S OKAY, MR. CHAIR. OKAY,
LET'S LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT
THE CAL EPA, YOUR STATE
SCIENTISTS SAID IN THEIR,
EXHAUSTIVE 374 PAGE REPORT, THEY
SAID THREE THINGS THAT ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT. ONE IS THEY
LOOKED AT 27 DIFFERENT STUDIES,
CLINICAL STUDIES OF HOW CHILDREN
RESPOND WHEN THEY ARE FED THESE
DYES. DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES WHERE
THEY FED GROUPS OF CHILDREN FOOD
WITH THESE DYES AND FOOD WITHOUT
THE DYES. SO THEY FED THEM THE
AMERICAN FRUIT LOOPS AND THE
CANADIAN FRUIT LOOPS. AND THESE
AND THESE STUDIES PROVIDED
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF
OUR KIDS, NOT JUST OUR KIDS WITH
ADHD, BUT BUT MANY OF OUR KIDS
WITH ADHD ARE SPECIALLY
SENSITIVE TO THESE DYES. THEY
THEY SAW A BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE.
BUT THE OTHER THING THAT THE CAL
EPA SCIENTISTS DID WAS THEY
LOOKED AT ALL OF THE ANIMAL
STUDIES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN DONE
ON THIS ISSUE, ON THIS QUESTION.
AND WHAT THEY FOUND WAS THAT
THESE CHEMICAL DYES WERE
CHANGING THE CHEMICAL SIGNALING
THAT GOES ON IN OUR KIDS BRAINS,
THE NEUROTRANSMITTERS THAT GO ON
IN OUR KIDS BRAINS, AND THAT
THEY WERE RESULTING IN
MICROSCOPIC CHANGES IN THEIR
BRAINS, SO LITERALLY CHANGING
THEIR BRAINS. SO, SO WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT TO MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE, SINCE I WROTE THE
PLAYBOOK WHEN I WAS AT CIBA, I
HAVE TO ADMIRE HIS RECITATION OF
IT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS
IS SO AWKWARD. I IT IS A LITTLE.
WE'RE STILL WE'RE WE ARE FRIENDS
AND WE'LL BE FRIENDS AND WE'LL
HAVE SOME FRUIT LOOPS
AFTERWARDS. SO THE SCIENCE
COULDN'T BE MORE COMPELLING.
THOMAS AND I READ THESE STUDIES
ALL THE TIME. WE'VE NEVER SEEN A
STUDY THAT HAS 27 DIFFERENT
CLINICAL STUDIES, MANY OF THEM
DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES OF HUMAN
EVIDENCE THAT SHOW WHAT HAPPENS
TO OUR KIDS WHEN THEY RESPOND IN
THIS WAY. AND SO IF THIS WERE A
IF I WERE ASKING YOU TO BAN
THESE INGREDIENTS ECONOMY WIDE,
THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
QUESTION. WHAT WHAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GABRIEL IS ASKING YOU TO
DO IS TO SIMPLY BAN THESE
CHEMICALS IN FOOD, AND THE
REASON THAT FOOD SOLD IN SCHOOLS
AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT,
AND SOME OF YOU HAVE HAD TO DO
THIS YOURSELF, IS THAT PARENTS
ARE STRUGGLING ALL DAY TO AVOID
SOME OF THESE CHEMICALS. FOR
SOME OF OUR KIDS WHEN THEIR KIDS
ARE AT HOME, BUT THEY LOSE THAT
CONTROL WHEN THEIR KIDS ARE AT
SCHOOL. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO REMOVE THESE
PARTICULAR CHEMICALS FROM THIS
ENVIRONMENT. AND NOT ONLY MAKES
IT HARDER FOR THEM TO LEARN, IT
MAKES IT HARDER FOR OUR TEACHERS
TO TEACH. SO AGAIN, THERE ARE
THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF FOODS
OFFERED AT SCHOOL. DO NOT HAVE
THESE CHEMICALS. SO OUR SCHOOL
FOOD PROFESSIONALS WILL HAVE
MANY, MANY CHOICES IN EVERY
CATEGORY. JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP
TO THAT. IF THAT IS THE CASE AND
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW,
WHY IS IT THAT, YOU KNOW, GROUPS
LIKE THE FDA AND YOU KNOW, THE
WHO AND ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW,
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NOT
FOUND THAT THAT EVIDENCE IS
SUFFICIENT? WELL, SO IN ADDITION
TO, BEING THE FORMER HEAD OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR THE
CONSUMER BRANDS ASSOCIATION, I'M
ALSO AN ADJUNCT LAW PROFESSOR AT
GEORGETOWN LAW SCHOOL, WHERE I
TEACH CHEMICAL SAFETY LAW. AND
AMONG THE THINGS I TEACH ARE HOW
THE FOOD ADDITIVE AMENDMENTS TO
THE FDA, THE FOOD, DRUG AND
COSMETIC ACT HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTED. AND ESSENTIALLY,
DESPITE WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED
IN 1958, THE FDA HAS EXITED THE
FIELD IN TWO IMPORTANT WAYS. ONE
IS THEY'RE ALLOWING THE VAST
MAJORITY OF FOOD CHEMICALS TO
ENTER COMMERCE WITH EVER WITHOUT
EVER BEING REVIEWED BY THE FDA.
99% OF FOOD, CHEMICALS,
CHEMICALS ENTER COMMERCE THROUGH
WHAT'S CALLED THE GENERALLY
RECOGNIZED AS SAFE OR GRASS
LOOPHOLE. THEY'RE NEVER REVIEWED
BY THE FDA. BUT WHAT'S MORE
IMPORTANT FOR THIS CONVERSATION
IS THAT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
AND THIS IS DIFFERENT FOR
PESTICIDES. I TEACH A SEPARATE
CLASS ON THAT. THIS IS
DIFFERENT. THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THE FDA TO GO
BACK AND SAY EVERY 15 YEARS, AS
WE DO FOR PESTICIDES, THESE ARE
THESE CHEMICALS ARE STILL SAFE.
THEY'RE RELYING ON DECISIONS IN
THIS CASE THAT WERE MADE IN THE
60S AND 70S OR 80S, BASED ON
TOXICOLOGY DONE IN THE 60S USING
1950S ANIMAL STUDIES. AND
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN THE
LAW FOR THEM TO GO BACK AND
RECONSIDER. NOW WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE REFERRED TO WAS A 2011
MEETING, THE COW. EPA SCIENTISTS
SPENT TWO YEARS AT ASKING THIS
QUESTION ARE SOME OF OUR KIDS
SUSCEPTIBLE TO THESE DYES? THE
FOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
THAT MY COLLEAGUE REFERRED TO
LASTED TWO HOURS. THAT WAS NOT
THE KIND OF REVIEW WE SHOULD
RELY ON WHEN WE'RE MAKING THIS
IMPORTANT DECISION ABOUT HOW TO
PROTECT OUR KIDS AND MAKING SURE
THEY'RE READY TO LEARN. OKAY AND
I GET THE SENSE THAT THE
OPPOSITION MAY HAVE A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT TAKE. SO I WAS CURIOUS
IF YOU JUST WANT TO RESPOND
BRIEFLY TO SOME OF THE, YOU
KNOW, TO YEAH, YEAH, I
APPRECIATE IT. THANKS, ADAM,
YEAH, I WOULD, JUST BRIEFLY LOOK
AT THAT. YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN
HANG ALL KINDS OF ASTERISKS OR
QUALIFICATIONS ON WHAT THE FDA
DID OR DIDN'T DO. BUT THE FACT
OF THE MATTER, IF IT'S A TWO
HOUR MEETING OR IF IT'S A 20
HOUR MEETING, THE FACT OF THE
MATTER IS THAT THEY REVIEWED ALL
THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE THAT
WAS AVAILABLE ON THAT. I'VE
ALREADY READ. IT'S IN THE
HANDOUT WHAT THEIR CONCLUSION
WAS. I DON'T NEED TO RECITE
THAT. I DO WANT TO JUST POINT
OUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW,
25 RANDOMIZED SAMPLES. BUT, I,
WE WON'T PICK, WITH RESPECT TO
WHETHER IT'S 25 OR 27, WE'LL
JUST JUMP RIGHT TO THE
CONCLUSION. AND Þ THEMSELVES
SAID THERE'S A NEED TO
REEVALUATE WEIGHT EXPOSURE IN
CHILDREN FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
TO PROVIDE A MORE COMPLETE DATA
BASE FOR ESTABLISHING ADIS
PROTECTIVE OF NEUROLOGICAL
BEHAVIOR EFFECTS, WE WON'T GET
INTO ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT
OHA REPORT HAD, I'LL JUST I'LL
JUST NOTE ON THE HANDOUT THAT I
PROVIDED YOU ALL THE SENATE
HEALTH COMMITTEE EVALUATED THIS
VERY SAME ISSUE INSTEAD OF
COLORS IN 2021, THE THEN CHAIR,
AND THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS LAID
OUT A TWO PART QUESTION ON
CAUSATION, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
BILL WAS SET FOR A HEARING, BUT
THE AUTHOR, CHOSE TO REMOVE IT
FROM THE CALENDAR. SO WE NEVER
GOT TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC DEBATE
ON IT, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THAT
CAUSATION IS AN ESTABLISHED THE
COMMITTEE RIGHTFULLY POINTED
THAT OUT BACK IN 2021, AND THE
AND THE VOLUME OF STUDIES THAT
ARE OUT THERE FROM FDA AS WELL
AS THE WORLD, EXPERTS ALSO
CORROBORATE THAT AS WELL. CHERRY
PICKING FROM AN OHA REPORT, I DO
NOT BELIEVE IS WHERE WE NEED TO
BE SETTING AND ESTABLISHING FOR
POLICY AS IMPORTANT AS THIS. AND
IF I MAY, MADAM? OH YEAH, THAT'S
ALL MY QUESTIONS. I THINK. I
MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU
HAVE TO SAY. I DO THINK I'VE
BEEN LOOKING AT THIS BILL VERY
CLOSELY, AND I FEEL THAT THERE
IS STILL SOME NARROWING THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND SO I, YOU
KNOW, AGAIN, I'M BEEN SPEAKING A
LOT WITH THE AUTHOR, BUT I THINK
THAT WE STILL NEED TO DO A
LITTLE MORE TO TAILOR THIS BILL,
TO THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE. YES.
AND I KNOW THAT THE AUTHOR, WITH
THE SUPPORT OF THE CHAIR, HAS
BEEN HAVING THOSE MEETINGS AND I
THINK INTENDS TO CONTINUE TO DO
THAT WORK. AND, LOOKS FORWARD TO
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS. I WOULD
ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I
THINK WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH
ABOUT WHERE THE SCIENCE IS. AND
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS BILL IS
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OPPOSITION
IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN
THE BILL. MR. GABRIEL MOVED LAST
YEAR, WHICH DID BAN CERTAIN
PRODUCTS WHERE THE SCIENCE TO
THE POINT OF THE OPPOSITION WAS,
CLEARER. I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE IS PARENTS
WHO WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN CHOICES
BASED ON SCIENCE THAT IS OUT
THERE AND GOOD SCIENCE. AND
MAYBE IT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH
THAT WE'VE DECIDED TO BAN
THINGS, BUT WE'VE DECIDED THAT
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE PARENTS THE
RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES FOR THE
FOODS THEY EAT. WHERE THERE IS
SCIENCE TO SAY IT IS CAUSING
THESE HARMS. AND SO PARENTS MAKE
THOSE CHOICES AT HOME OR THEY
DON'T. AND THEN THEY SEND THEIR
KIDS OFF TO SCHOOL. AND WE'VE
NOW PROVIDED EVERY SINGLE
CALIFORNIA STUDENT WITH LUNCH
AND BREAKFAST, WHICH IS A
WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL THING. BUT
AS THE MOM OF A SCHOOL AGED
CHILD, I CAN TELL YOU HE'S
EATING A LOT MORE SUGAR AT
SCHOOL THAN HE DID BEFORE,
RIGHT? AND THAT'S NOT A CHOICE.
I GET TO MAKE ANYMORE. BUT WHERE
IT'S THESE KIND OF THINGS THAT
MIGHT BE HARMING CERTAIN KIDS IN
THIS WAY, AND THERE IS SCIENCE
TO BACK IT UP. AND AGAIN, MAYBE
THERE'S A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THEN I THINK PARENTS
SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CHOICE THAT
THEIR KIDS DON'T EAT THESE
THINGS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT
ISN'T A MINORITY OF THE FOODS
THAT ARE SERVED. BUT I KNOW THAT
THE AUTHOR IS ABSOLUTELY
COMMITTED TO FURTHER NARROWING
THE BILL.
SO THE AUTHOR HAS MADE A NUMBER
OF COMMITMENTS, AND ONE OF THEM
IS TO FOCUS VERY CLOSELY ON THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL. AND THE SCOPE
OF THE BILL IS ALSO TIED TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE, FOR THE
BILL, THE, THE, BACK AND FORTH
ON THE SCIENCE, I THINK IS A
GOOD THING, FOR US TO,
DELIBERATE AND DEBATE, IT WILL
HELP US DETERMINE, I THINK, AT
SOME POINT, THE ACTUAL SCOPE OF
THE BILL. RIGHT. SO I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO REMAINING ENGAGED IN
THIS, PARTICULAR POLICY MATTER,
THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL HAS ASKED
US TO HELP FACILITATE THESE
DISCUSSIONS. AND, WE DID NOT
PROPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS BECAUSE
THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT AMONGST
STAKEHOLDERS, BOTH, THE AUTHOR
AND THE CONCERNED, OPPOSITION,
THAT THE SCOPE OF THE BILL WOULD
BE NARROWED AND THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE WOULD BE
DIFFERENT, TO WHAT'S IN WRITING
TODAY. BUT I THINK THAT THERE
WILL BE FURTHER DELIBERATION AND
DEBATE ON THE SCIENCE AND ALLOW
THE POLICY COMMITTEES, BOTH HERE
AND IN THE SENATE, IF THE BILL
DOES GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO
BE ABLE TO LAND IN A PLACE WHERE
THE OBJECTIVES ARE MET, A LOT IS
SAID. AND THIS AFTERNOON WE'VE
HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT, WELL,
THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THIS IN
OTHER COUNTRIES, AND I THINK
THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW,
COMMENDABLE TO COUNTRIES THAT
ARE MOVING FASTER THAN US. AND
IN THE UNITED STATES OR IN
CALIFORNIA, WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS
OUR PROCESS OF CERTIFYING
WHATEVER THOSE ALTERNATIVES ARE
WHEN IT COMES TO, PUTTING THEM
ON THE MARKET, WHETHER WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FOOD ALTERNATIVES
OR EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
IT HAD TO DO WITH HERBICIDES AND
OTHER TYPES OF, CHEMICALS.
RIGHT. AND SO SOMETIMES I DON'T
KNOW THAT IT IS FAIR TO COMPARE
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE WORLD TO, WELL, IF
THEY'RE DOING IT THERE, WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST DO IT
HERE, BECAUSE THE PROCESS TO GET
HERE IN CALIFORNIA IS VERY
DIFFERENT. AND SO IF WE WANT TO
ACCELERATE THE BANNING OF THINGS
, THEN WE SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT
THE ACCELERATION OF HOW WE
APPROVE THE ALTERNATIVES, AND
THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT I
WANT TO KIND OF CONTINUE TO TALK
ABOUT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE
MISSING PIECE HERE. WE WANT TO
MOVE VERY QUICKLY IN BANNING
CHEMICALS AND IN THIS CASE, IN
SOME CASES, FOOD, ADDITIVES.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
BUT, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION THÀNH COULD BE
FAR DIFFERENT AND TAKE FAR
LONGER THAN WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. SO I
JUST WANT US TO BE MINDFUL THAT
IF THE OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE SURE
THE KIDS ARE SAFE, WHICH I 100%
AGREE, I'VE GOT A LITTLE GIRL
THAT TRYING TO KEEP THESE TAKIS
AND HOT CHEETOS AWAY FROM HER.
RIGHT. AND GOOD LUCK. YOU KNOW,
ASIDE FROM THEM BEING ALL OVER
THE WALLS AND CLOTHES. RIGHT. WE
NOTICED A DIFFERENT KIND OF
ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR. AND I
DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE THE SCIENCE
SEEMS TO BE QUESTIONABLE. STILL,
IN SOME CASES, WHETHER OR NOT,
WE CAN MOVE, THE CONVERSATION,
IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER.
BUT WHAT WE'RE HOPEFUL HERE IS,
THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION. AS THE AUTHOR HAS
SAID, HE'S WILLING TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH, THE STAKEHOLDERS,
AND WE'RE GOING TO REMAIN
ENGAGED AND, HOPE THAT WE GET A
BILL THAT MEETS THE OBJECTIVES,
BUT ALSO THAT STRIKES THE
BALANCE. THESE INDUSTRIES ARE
IMPORTANT TO CALIFORNIA. THEY
ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR ECONOMY.
THEY EMPLOY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF PEOPLE IN VARIOUS REGIONS OF
THE STATE. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND
AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH CONVERSATION IS KIND OF
FRONT AND CENTER. AND THESE
INDUSTRIES, AT LEAST THE ONES
THAT ARE AT THE TABLE HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION, HAVE PLEDGED
THAT THAT IS ALSO A PRIORITY AND
IMPORTANT TO THEM. FOR THOSE
REASONS, I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE
TO LAND AT A PLACE WHERE, WE'LL
GET A GOOD PIECE OF PUBLIC
POLICY, TO BE ABLE TO BE
IMPLEMENTED RESPECTFULLY AND
RESPONSIBLY. SO, WE DO HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THE BILL.
AND, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO
CLOSE ON BEHALF OF MR. GABRIEL.
I'LL JUST RESPECT THE VOTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE DO HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY,
I'LL MOVE THE BILL. SECOND ROLL
CALL, ITEM SIX, AB 2316. GABRIEL
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND
REREFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. GARCIA I
HOOVER. HOOVER NOT VOTING.
CONLEY MCKINNEY. MCKINNEY. I
PAPIN. PAPIN I REYES REYES I TO.
WE HAVE FOUR VOTES. ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR
OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. FILE
NUMBER FIVE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WILSON. NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
YEAH THAT'S OKAY. BUT, LIKE,
IT'S NOT EVEN. GOOD JOB. SCOTT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID. BUT
THAT'S OKAY. IN 2011. VIÆT. OH
OKAY. HERE WITH NOTES. I DON'T
EVEN HAVE TO USE MY PHONE. I
ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING IN
PRINT. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS, I
AM PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 2300, A
BILL THAT WILL BAN DHP FORM USED
IN I.V. BAGS AND IN CERTAIN
CASES, TUBING, DHP BELONGS TO A
FAMILY OF HORMONAL, HORMONALLY
ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL, CHEMICAL,
CALLED FOLATES, WHICH ARE USED
TO MAKE PLASTIC SOFT AND PLIABLE
AND CAN BE FOUND IN A MYRIAD OF
PRODUCTS RANGING FROM GARDEN
HOSES TO SHOWER CURTAINS TO
VINYL FLOORING AND BUILDING
MATERIALS. DHP IMPACTS THE
THYROID AND IMMUNE SYSTEM
RESEARCH INDICATES THAT DEHP
PROMOTES DRUG RESISTANCE AND
INHIBITS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
BREAST CANCER DRUGS. IT
INTERFERES WITH THE ABILITY OF
CHEMOTHERAPIES TO FIGHT BREAST
CANCER, AND THAT PATIENTS WITH
HIGHER LEVELS OF DHP IN THEIR
SYSTEM HAD HIGHER RATES OF
RELAPSE AND MORTALITY. THIS IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME. AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR I
BATTLED BREAST CANCER AND PROUD
TO SAY THAT I'M HAPPILY ON THE
OTHER SIDE. ONE THING THAT,
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLAP. THANK
YOU EVERYBODY, BUT ONE THING
THAT I AM, EXCITED ABOUT IS
WORKING ON THIS LEGISLATION IS
THAT MY PARTICULAR FACILITY,
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WHERE I WAS
GETTING CARE, HAD DD DEHP BAGS.
SO THAT WAS A GOOD THING, LIKE
DEHP FREE BAGS, EXCUSE ME?
WHEREAS OTHERS, WHO RECEIVE CARE
IN OTHER SYSTEMS DO NOT HAVE
THAT BENEFIT, AND THIS IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE DEHP HAS BEEN
SHOWN TO LEACH OUT OF THE IV
BAGS AND TUBINGS AND INTO THE
MEDICATION AND OTHER FLUIDS
BEING INFUSED INTO THE
BLOODSTREAM OF PATIENTS. THE
GOOD NEWS IS THAT, AS I NOTED,
SAFER ALTERNATIVES EXIST AND ARE
ALREADY BEING USED IN FDA
APPROVED DEHP IV BAGS. FOR
EXAMPLE, B.BRAUN AND FRESENIUS
KABI ALREADY EXCLUSIVELY
MANUFACTURED DEHP FREE IV BAGS,
AND THEIR COMPETITORS BAXTER AND
ICU MEDICAL, ALSO OFFER A LARGE
PORTFOLIO OF FDA APPROVED DEHP
FREE IV BAGS. MANY COMPANIES
ALSO MANUFACTURE IV TUBING FREE
OF DEHP, BUT BECAUSE THIS SECTOR
OF INDUSTRY IS MORE COMPLICATED,
MUCH MORE COMPLICATED, AND I'M
SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF IT BY
SERVING ON THIS COMMITTEE, YOU
KNOW THIS WE HAVE GIVEN THESE
MANUFACTURERS MORE TIME TO
COMPLY WITH THE BILL'S REQUIRED
PHASE OUT OF DEHP AND IV TUBING,
I ALSO HAS ALSO MY OFFICE HAS
ALSO TAKEN AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE
HUMAN BLOOD AND BLOOD PRODUCT
COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND
STORAGE BAGS, INCLUDING INTEGRAL
TUBING. NOW, THIS AMENDMENT WAS
TAKEN AFTER CONCERNS WERE
RAISED, AROUND THERE NOT BEING
AN ALTERNATIVE NON DEHP BAGS. WE
HAVE HEARD THE CONCERNS AROUND
SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES FROM THE
MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
AND THE AND AS WELL AS THE
OPPOSITION. WE ARE WORKING TO
ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. WE MADE
A COMMITMENT THAT, IN THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO FIGURE
OUT A PATHWAY FORWARD. AND WE
HAVE BEEN FAITHFUL TO THAT
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION. SOME COMPANIES
DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE FDA
APPROVED DEHP FREE IV TUBING,
GIVEN THE SITUATION, THE BILL
PROVIDES A LONGER RAMP UP FOR
TUBING AND AS I NOTED, WE ARE
ACTIVELY WORKING ON A TIMELINE
THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE ON
IMPLEMENTING THE DEHP BAN ON THE
IV BAGS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
THANK ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS
FOR THE ROBUST CONVERSATIONS
WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST FEW
WEEKS, AND I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. IF THE BILL
WOULD MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITH ME
TODAY IS JANET NOODLEMAN FROM
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS AND PETER ALLEN FROM
FRESENIUS. I THOUGHT ABOUT I
SAID IT WRONG EARLIER. FRESENIUS
KABI TO SPEAK MORE ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF AB 2300 AND TO
HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
PROCEED. WONDERFUL GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN GARCIA AND
MEMBERS OF THE ASTM COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JANET NOODLEMAN, AND
I'M THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF
PROGRAM AND POLICY AT BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS. WE
ARE ONE OF THE AB 2300 BILL
SPONSORS, ALONG WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BLACK HEALTH NETWORK.
I AM PLEASED TO TESTIFY TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2300. AS YOU
HEARD, THIS BILL WOULD PROHIBIT
THE MANUFACTURE, SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF I.V. BAGS AND
TUBING MADE WITH DEHP IN
CALIFORNIA. THE DEHP IS AN
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING COMPOUND
THAT IS USED IN MANY PRODUCTS,
PARTICULARLY THOSE PRODUCTS MADE
OUT OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE OR PVC
PLASTIC. THE PURPOSE OF DEHP IS
TO MAKE IV BAGS AND PLASTIC
TUBING FLEXIBLE, AND SOME IV
BAGS AND TUBING CAN BE MADE UP
OF 40% TO 80% DEHP BY WEIGHT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE DEHP
IS NOT A STABLE MOLECULE, AND IT
HAS BEEN SHOWN TO LEACH OUT OF
IV BAGS AND TUBING AND INTO THE
MEDICATION AND THE OTHER FLUIDS
BEING INFUSED INTO THE
BLOODSTREAM OF PATIENTS. THIS
PRESENTS A RISK OF EXPOSURE TO
DEHP FOR PATIENTS, AND
REPRESENTS A SERIOUS PUBLIC
HEALTH CONCERN. BECAUSE DEHP HAS
BEEN LINKED TO BREAST, LIVER,
LUNG, AND TESTICULAR CANCER, AND
IS A CALIFORNIA PROP 65 LISTED
CARCINOGEN AND REPRODUCTIVE AND
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICANT. A NUMBER
OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SHOW THAT
DEHP INTERFERES WITH THE ABILITY
OF CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS TO FIGHT
BREAST CANCER, AND THAT PATIENTS
WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF DEHP IN
THEIR SYSTEM HAD HIGHER RATES OF
BREAST CANCER RELAPSE AND
MORTALITY. IN ADDITION, DEHP HAS
BEEN SHOWN IN LABORATORY STUDIES
TO INCREASE THE GROWTH OF HUMAN
BREAST CANCER CELLS AND DECREASE
THE EFFICACY OF TAMOXIFEN, WHICH
IS A DRUG COMMONLY USED TO TREAT
BREAST CANCER. NOW, I'M NOT A
DOCTOR, BUT EVEN I KNOW THAT IT
SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE THAT
IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR DEHP TO BE
PRESENT IN A MEDICAL DEVICE IF
IT STOPPED THAT MEDICAL DEVICE
FROM BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP TO
DELIVER A LIFE SAVING MEDICINE
TO A PATIENT, THAT SIMPLY
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME,
ESPECIALLY WHEN SAFER
ALTERNATIVES TO DEHP HAVE BEEN
USED IN MEDICAL DEVICES FOR WELL
OVER FOUR DECADES. THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS,
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, AND EVEN THE FDA
ENCOURAGES HOSPITALS AND
PHYSICIANS TO REDUCE AND PHASE
OUT THE USE OF MEDICAL DEVICES
CONTAINING DEHP. GIVEN THE MANY
WELL-ESTABLISHED HEALTH CONCERNS
RELATED TO DEHP, I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS COMMON SENSE
HEALTH PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION,
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND, THIS DO
HAVE HAVE A Dð PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY FOR RECOMMENDATION.
SOUNDS GOOD. DID YOU WANT TO
SHARE ANY TESTIMONY? IS THAT
ALLOWED? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO
MAKE SURE SOMETIMES IN SOME
COMMITTEES, FIRST AND A SECOND
MEANS STOP TALKING. BUT BUT HE
CAME ALL THIS WAY. KIND OF MEANS
THE SAME THING HERE TOO. BUT WE
WANT TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY
IN A VERY BRIEF WAY, VERY
BRIEFLY. SO GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN GARCIA. AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PETER ALLEN.
I'M THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
FOR IV THERAPY AT FRESENIUS
KABI, AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL.
FRESENIUS KABI MADE THE DECISION
LONG AGO TO STOP USING DEHP IN
THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF IV
BAGS EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD,
GLOBALLY, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE
PATIENT RISKS THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTS THAT
CONTAIN DEHP. AND I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY THAT SWITCHING TO DEHP
IS NOT A CUMBERSOME PROCESS.
100% OF THE MANUFACTURERS, EVERY
SINGLE ONE THAT PARTICIPATE IN
THE US MARKET ALREADY MAKE
PRODUCTS THAT DON'T HAVE DEHP IN
THEM, THEIR COMPANION PRODUCTS
TO THE ONES THAT DO. IT'S NOT
IT'S NOT WOULD NOT BE CUMBERSOME
TO MAKE THAT SWITCH. AND WE'RE
IN FULL SUPPORT OF THAT. AS FOR
IV TUBING, IT'S A MUCH MORE
COMPLICATED PROCESS, MUCH MORE
FRAGMENTED MARKET, SO I DO THINK
WE NEED A LONGER PHASE IN,
PROCESS FOR THAT. BUT WE
CERTAINLY DON'T FOR THE IV
SOLUTIONS MARKETS. THANK YOU.
IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES SAY
THAT IT CAN BE DONE. THANK YOU.
I WILL ASK, MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE IF THEY WILL PLEASE
COME FORWARD, NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. HI. CHRISTY FOY,
ON BEHALF OF FRESENIUS MEDICAL
CARE IN SUPPORT AND WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR ALL OF HER
WORK ON THE BILL. THANK YOU,
ANNA CHICO CORNELL, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND JUSTICE
AND THE ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR
HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. VANESSA
FORSYTHE, BREAST CANCER SURVIVOR
AND ALSO A REGISTERED NURSE
ASKING AGAIN, SUPPORT, PLEASE.
FAMILY ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL
TOXICITIES. GRANDPARENTS FOR
ACTION. NORTH COUNTY CLIMATE
CHANGE ALLIANCE, INTERFAITH
COALITION FOR EARTH JUSTICE AND
ALSO NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND
JUSTICE AND CLEAN EARTH FOR
KIDS. ORG THANK YOU. CHEN
ENGSTROM WITH CALPIRG AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO,
WHITNEY FRANCIS WITH THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY IN
SUPPORT. HELLO, LEAH JONES ON
BEHALF OF VOICE FOR CHOICE
ADVOCACY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI. LARA GUILLEN, ON
BEHALF OF CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, GWEN
BASSINO, CALIFORNIA HEALTH
COALITION ADVOCACY AND CLEAN
WATER ACTION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M ALICIA CAREY,
MICAH WITH B BRAUN MEDICAL. WE
MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCTS THAT
ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS
LEGISLATION DOWN IN IRVINE, AND
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
KATRINA DUNCAN WITH CALIFORNIA
BLACK HEALTH NETWORK IN STRONG
SUPPORT. MEG SNYDER, ON BEHALF
OF THE VINYL INSTITUTE, OPPOSED.
ALL RIGHT. THOSE WISHING TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. JOHN
WENGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE THE NATIONAL
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE
MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY. I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF FOR THE CONTINUED
DISCUSSION. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF
DIALOG, SHE SAID. WEEKS. I THINK
IT'S BEEN MONTHS AT THIS POINT,
BUT APPRECIATE ALL THE ALL THE
DIALOG AND THE CONSIDERATION. I
THINK FROM OUR MEMBERS
PERSPECTIVE, PERSPECTIVE, WE
STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS
AROUND THE IMPLEMENTATION
TIMELINE. THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE
BILL, A TYPICAL CONVERSION PLAN
FOR FLEXIBLE SOLUTION CONTAINER
PRODUCTS INCLUDES SEVERAL PHASES
AND HAS TO BE DONE EVERY SINGLE
FOR EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT AT ONE
TIME. SO SHELF TESTING ALONE CAN
TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO COMPLETE,
SOME COMPANIES HAVE AS MANY AS
100 UNIQUE INTRAVENOUS
ADMINISTERED DRUG PRODUCTS IN
THE CALIFORNIA MARKET, THE WORK
TO QUALIFY EACH CONFIGURATION
CANNOT OCCUR IN PARALLEL BECAUSE
THE NEED TO PRIORITIZE THE
PRODUCTION OF RELEASABLE
PRODUCTS TO PREVENT,
INTERRUPTION TO PATIENT CARE
WORLDWIDE. SO AS SUCH, DEHP FREE
PRODUCTS WILL BECOME AVAILABLE
ON A ROLLING BASIS. SOME
PRODUCTS WILL BE AVAILABLE PRIOR
TO THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE, BUT
IT WILL TAKE, WE BELIEVE, UNTIL
2035 TO FULLY, GET ALL IV BAGS
AND TUBING PRODUCT PRODUCT
PRODUCTS TRANSITIONED AND, AND
APPROVED, WITH THE FDA, WE WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO SEE A THRESHOLD
AROUND WHAT CONSTITUTES
INTENTIONALLY ADDED DEHP, WHICH
IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER
CHEMICAL BANDS SO THAT WE DON'T
GET PENALIZED FOR TRACE AMOUNTS,
THE ASSEMBLY HEALTH ANALYSIS, I
THOUGHT DID A GREAT JOB OF
HIGHLIGHTING OUR CONCERNS AND
SUGGESTING THAT THE AUTHOR
CONSIDER A LATER IMPLEMENTATION
DATE. I THINK THIS COMMITTEE DID
A GREAT JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING THE
CHALLENGES THE EU HAS HAD IN ITS
IMPLEMENTATION THÀNH, WHICH I
BELIEVE IS ON PACE FOR 13 YEARS
AT THIS POINT, WE CONTINUE TO
BELIEVE THAT THE INDUSTRY AS A
WHOLE AND THE SUPPLY CHAIN AS A
WHOLE NEEDS TEN YEARS TO FULLY
TRANSITION AWAY FROM DEHP. AND
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE AN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, THOSE WISHING TO ASSOCIATE
THEMSELVES WITH THE, OPPOSITION
OF THIS BILL, PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. OKAY.
THANK YOU, DAVID GONZALEZ,
TODAY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES, WE
WOULD LIKE TO ASSOCIATE
OURSELVES WITH THE COMMENTS MADE
BY MR. WENGER, WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE, BUT WE DO
REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE
IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES. WE ARE
AN EXTENSIVELY REGULATED
INDUSTRY THROUGH THE FDA AND THE
THINGS THAT WE SUPPLY TO
PATIENTS ARE ACTUALLY CRITICAL
AND VERY IMPORTANT. SO IT'S NOT
LIKE MAKING A CELL PHONE OR A
NAIL. IT'S REALLY IT'S PATIENT,
CRITICAL. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THOSE DEADLINES ARE
APPROPRIATE AND THAT THE
PATIENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THESE
IMPORTANT MEDICATIONS. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. DON KOEPKE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS
AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, CMTA
WOULD ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
THAT OF ADVAMED AND RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. TIM
SHOSTAK WITH THE AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY COUNCIL. ALSO IN
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. I
APPRECIATE THE ONGOING
CONVERSATION. LOOK FORWARD TO
THOSE DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU.
MOYAMOYA TOP. ON BEHALF OF
BIOCOM CALIFORNIA ALSO OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED AND VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS
WE'VE HAD. THANK YOU. SEE NO ONE
ELSE. I'LL BRING THE ITEM BACK
TO DÍAS QUESTIONS, PLEASE. WELL,
I APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION'S
POSITION, NOT JUST NO, WE WON'T
DO IT. AND NO, THIS IS NOT GOOD,
BUT GIVE US TEN YEARS, BUT I
ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE AUTHOR
ACCEPTED TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION
FOR FIVE YEARS, I WANT TO
APPLAUD KAISER HOSPITALS. SINCE
2010, THEY HAVE USED PRODUCTS
THAT DO NOT HAVE DEHP, PE,
FRESENIUS, CONGRATULATIONS TO
YOU TOO. SO, CLEARLY, AS THEY
SAY, WHERE THERE IS A WILL,
THERE IS A WAY. AND MAYBE
THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION TO BE
HELD ABOUT DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION. BUT FIVE YEARS
OF DELAY IMPLEMENTATION, FOR
MOST OF THESE, BILLS WHO WERE
TALKING ABOUT GIVING A LITTLE
MORE TIME, I, I THINK IS QUITE
SOME TIME. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
POSITION THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT CAN BE DONE. YOU JUST NEED
A LITTLE MORE TIME. WANTED TO
COMMENT ON, ON ON THE FACT THAT
I APPRECIATE THAT THE TWO OF YOU
ARE TALKING, WITH THAT, I WANT
TO MOVE THE BILL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. OH, IT'S ALREADY BEEN
MOVED. YEAH, YOU DID ALREADY.
THANK YOU. ARE YOU IN PAPINE?
FIRST AND SECOND, THEN WE. YEAH.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMENTS.
THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND,
PLEASE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YES. THANK YOU, TO THE
COMMITTEE. I APPRECIATE THE
POSITION OF OPPOSITION. AND, AND
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT THAT IT
COULD HAVE ON NOT ONLY INDUSTRY
BUT SUPPLY CHAINS. AND SO THAT'S
WHY I'M COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND I'VE
DONE THAT IN GOOD FAITH AND,
APPRECIATE, AS HE SAID, IT HAS
BEEN MONTHS. I THINK I STILL HAD
MY NOTES FROM WEEKS BEFORE WHEN
IT WAS WEEKS, BUT IT HAS BEEN
MONTHS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION. THAT'S HOW
WE'VE GOTTEN TO WHERE WE ARE AND
I, LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE. ITEM FIVE AB
2300. WILSON. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS TO THE FLOOR. GARCIA GARCIA
I HOOVER. HOOVER NO. CONLEY.
MCKENNA PAPIN. PAPIN. I REYES I
REYES I TO. THANK YOU. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR THE MEMBERS
TO ADD ON. WE HAVE, FILE NUMBER
EIGHT, AB 2454 SENATE MEMBER LEE
.
I WAS TRYING TO GET OAN SO THAT
WE GOT SO MUCH GOING ON AND. THE
BILL DOES DO, DOES HAVE A DO
PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M
BACK AGAIN. NO PROPS THIS TIME.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND THE
SPONSORS FOR WORKING VERY HARD
WITH ME ON THIS BILL. THIS BILL
FOLLOWS UP ON MY WORK RELATED TO
DOMESTIC WELLS AND ENSURING SAFE
DRINKING WATER FOR ALL. DESPITE
THE EXISTENCE OF FREE DOMESTIC
WELL TESTING PROGRAMS IN MANY
REGIONS OF THE STATE, DOMESTIC
WELL PARTICIPATION REMAINS FAR
TOO LOW, PUTTING WELL DRINKERS
AT RISK OF EXPOSURE TO DANGEROUS
CONTAMINANTS. AS NOTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, NEITHER THE
US, EPA NOR STATE WATER BOARD
REGULATES DOMESTIC WELLS,
ALTHOUGH BOTH RECOMMEND ANNUAL
TESTING OF WELLS USED FOR
DRINKING WATER. THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE THAT THOSE LIVING IN
AREAS SERVICED BY DOMESTIC WELLS
ARE NOT DRINKING TOXIC TAP
WATER. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH
CALIFORNIA'S HUMAN RIGHT TO
WATER LAW, WHICH STATES THAT IT
IS A RIGHT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING
TO HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING
WATER, WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY TWO WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT TODAY, MICHAEL
CLAYBURNE, DIRECTING ATTORNEY AT
THE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY. AND
ABRAHAM MENDOZA OF THE COMMUNITY
WATER CENTER. GOOD AFTERNOON TO
THE CHAIR AND TO THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL CLAYBORN. I'M
A DIRECTING ATTORNEY AT
LEADERSHIP, COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. TEN YEARS
AFTER THIS STATE HAS RECOGNIZED
THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE WATER, APPROXIMATELY
1 MILLION CALIFORNIANS STILL
LACK ACCESS TO SAFE WATER IN
THEIR HOMES. A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THIS POPULATION IS
THE TWO NEARLY 2 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS THAT RECEIVE THEIR
WATER FROM PRIVATE WELLS.
THERE'S NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT IN
MOST OF THE STATE FOR THESE
PRIVATE WELLS TO EVER BE TESTED,
SO RESIDENTS SERVED BY THESE
WELLS MAY BE DRINKING
CONTAMINATED WATER WITHOUT EVER
KNOWING IT. IN AN ATTEMPT TO
ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, STATE AND
REGIONAL AGENCIES HAVE
ESTABLISHED FREE DOMESTIC WELL
TESTING PROGRAMS OFFERED TO WELL
OWNERS, THESE PROGRAMS TARGET
HIGH RISK AREAS, AND WE'VE SEEN
IN SOME AREAS, OVER 50% OF
TESTED WELLS EXCEED STANDARDS
FOR ARSENIC. 123 TCP NITRATES,
URANIUM AND OTHER CONTAMINANTS.
YET PARTICIPATION IN THESE FREE
WELL TESTING PROGRAMS REMAINS
DANGEROUSLY LOW, DEPENDING ON
THE PROGRAM. DESPITE EXTENSIVE
OUTREACH EFFORTS, BETWEEN 10 AND
20% OF CUSTOMERS GENERALLY
PARTICIPATE IN THESE PROGRAMS.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TROUBLING
WHEN DOMESTIC WELL OWNERS
FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE PUTS
OTHER RESIDENTS AT RISK. AB 2454
IS A COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT
WOULD REQUIRE DOMESTIC WELL
OWNERS WITH UNITS THAT ARE NOT
OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER TO
PARTICIPATE IN FREE DOMESTIC
WELL TESTING PROGRAMS, PROVIDE
THAT INFORMATION TO THEIR, TO
RESIDENTS SERVED BY THE DOMESTIC
WELL AND ALSO ENSURE THERE'S AN
ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SAFE DRINKING
WATER. WE URGE AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISTER
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE, ABRAHAM
MENDOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER. SO WE
WORK WITH OVER 34 DIFFERENT
FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES ACROSS
THE CENTRAL COAST IN SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE
MICHAEL AND THE MEMBER HAS
MENTIONED, THERE'S MORE THAN 1
MILLION CALIFORNIANS THAT LACK
ACCESS TO SAFE, CLEAN AND
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER IN THE
STATE, IN SOME AREAS OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY THAT WE WORK IN
DIRECTLY, NITRATES AND OTHER
PESTICIDES HAVE ACCUMULATED TO
THE POINT THAT TAP WATER FOR
RURAL HOUSEHOLDS AND SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS DO NOT MAKE MEET SAFE
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS. AND
THERE'S OVER 1700 HOUSEHOLDS
THAT ARE RELYING ON BOTTLED
WATER DELIVERIES FOR THEIR
PRIMARY SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
DUE TO JUST CONTAMINATION AND
DRIED WELLS, I'D LIKE TO SHARE A
STORY OF A WOMAN WHO I WORKED
WITH DIRECTLY. HER NAME IS DONA
MARIA. AND SHE IS A TULARE
COUNTY RESIDENT WHO WAS OUTREACH
TO BY SELF-HELP ENTERPRISES AND
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER ABOUT
WELL TESTING HAULED REPLACEMENT
AND BOTTLED WATER SERVICES BEING
OFFERED TO HER FREE AS PART OF A
LOCAL PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
WITH GROWERS, NONPROFITS AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACCESS. SHE
LET US KNOW THAT THE WELL AT HER
HOME HAD WENT DRY AND WE WORKED
ON OUR END TO TRY AND CONTACT
THE WELL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
TO BE ABLE TO GET HER CONNECTED
WITH THESE RESOURCES THAT WERE
AVAILABLE FOR HER FREE OF
CHARGE, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS A
DELAY AND IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO
BE ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF THIS
PERSON. AND IN THE MEANTIME,
DONA MARIA WAS ACTUALLY FORCED
TO PURCHASE OUT OF HER OWN
POCKET REPLACEMENT BOTTLED WATER
SERVICE FOR OVER FIVE MONTHS.
WHILE THAT DELAY WAS PROCESSING
AND SO WE PERSONALLY FEEL THAT
AB 2454 BUILDS ON EXISTING LAW
TO ENSURE THAT THESE TYPES OF
COMMUNITIES AND OTHER TENANTS IN
THESE HIGH RISK AREAS ARE ABLE
TO ACCESS THESE VITAL SERVICES
LIKE WELL TESTING AND DOMESTIC
WATER REPLACEMENT SERVICES. AND
WE URGE AN AYE VOTE FROM THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL ASK THOSE WHO WANT TO
REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MELISSA ROMERO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. BILL ALLIO,
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP IN
SUPPORT JANE AND CALIFORNIANS
FOR PESTICIDE REFORM IN SUPPORT.
MARK WELLER ON BEHALF OF SAFE AG
SAFE SCHOOLS MONTEREY BAY
COALITION ADVOCATING FOR
PESTICIDE SAFETY. TULARE COUNTY
AND COALITION. I'M SORRY.
ADVOCATING FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY.
VENTURA COUNTY AS WELL. IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE, I DON'T BELIEVE
THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, BUT I'LL ASK, IS THERE
ANYONE WANTING TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE, I WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DÍAS. IT DOES HAVE A
Dð PASS RECOMMENDATION. I'LL
MOVE THE BILL. IS THERE A
SECOND? SECOND A SECOND? THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD, ANY TIME WE HAVE
BILLS THAT ARE DEALING WITH THE
ISSUE OF CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING
WATER, I MEAN, THOSE ARE
IMPORTANT BILLS FOR ALL OF US.
AND I BELIEVE WE CAN START
TELLING PEOPLE THAT. I DON'T
KNOW THAT IT'S A MILLION PEOPLE
ANYMORE. I THINK THAT NUMBER IS
DECREASING. I THINK WE'RE
SOMEWHERE IN THE SEVEN, 50,000,
800,000. SO WE'RE MAKING LITTLE
PROGRESS ALONG THE WAY. AND, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING
THE STORY OF DONA MARIA. THERE'S
TOO MANY DONA MARIA'S THAT DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE, CLEAN
DRINKING WATER. BUT THERE'S ALSO
A LOT OF MISSUS MARY'S OUT THERE
IN SOME PARTS OF THE STATE THAT
ALSO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE,
CLEAN DRINKING WATER. AND SO I
KNOW THAT WHEN WE START SEEING
DIVERSE POPULATIONS OF
INDIVIDUALS BEING AFFECTED BY
THIS PROBLEM, THAT'S WHEN WE GET
THE ATTENTION OF FOLKS. AND SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD, I LOOK FORWARD TO
SUPPORTING IT TODAY. AND OF
COURSE, AS IT GETS TO THE FLOOR,
THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
MATTER THAT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK,
TO CONTINUE, NOT JUST WITH ONE
BILL, BUT KIND OF THE FOLLOW
THROUGH THAT TAKES PLACE AND THE
OVERSIGHT AT THE WATER BOARD. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
? COULDN'T SAY IT BETTER MYSELF.
MR. CHAIR, I ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PLEASE
CALL. ROLL ITEM EIGHT AB 2454
LI. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA AYE.
GARCIA. AYE. HOOVER. HOOVER. NOT
VOTING. CONNELLY. MCKINLEY
PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE. REYES REYES.
AYE TO THREE. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR OTHER
MEMBERS TO ADD ON. DOCTOR WEBER,
THANK YOU FOR WAITING PATIENTLY.
THE BILL DOES HAVE A DUE PASS TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
I BELIEVE THERE IS NO OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL. SO I. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
2671, A BILL TO PROTECT OUR
CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND HOME
DAYCARES IN CALIFORNIA. THERE
ARE APPROXIMATELY 38,000 CHILD
CARE LICENSES, INCLUDING BOTH
CHILD DAYCARE FACILITIES AND
DAYCARE HOMES. IN 2018, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN HAD A BILL AB
2370, REQUIRING CHILD DAYCARE
FACILITIES TO TEST THEIR
DRINKING WATER FOR LEAD
CONTAMINATION. THAT TESTING IS
STILL UNDERWAY NOW, AND TO DATE,
50% OF THE LICENSED CENTERS HAVE
TESTED THEIR WATERS AND ARE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LICENSING
DIRECTIVES. HOWEVER THE LEAD
CONTENT RESULTS ARE ALARMING. 1
IN 4 CENTERS FOUND WATER LEAD
LEVELS IN EXCESS OF THE
ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT, FIVE
PARTS PER BILLION, AND LEAD IN
SOME WATER CENTERS WAS FAR ABOVE
THE LEGAL LIMIT. IN SOME
FACILITIES, LEAD LEVELS WERE
MORE THAN 100 TO EVEN 2000 TIMES
THE LEGAL LIMIT. THE CDC HAS
STATED THAT THERE IS NO SAFE
LEVEL OF LEAD, ESPECIALLY FOR
OUR CHILDREN, AND EXPOSURE TO
LEAD CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS MEDICAL
PROBLEMS FOR OUR CHILDREN,
CAUSING WELL-DOCUMENTED ADVERSE
EFFECTS SUCH AS DAMAGE TO THE
BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM, SLOWED
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND
LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
. CALIFORNIA'S 28,000 LICENSED
FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO ADDRESS DRINKING
WATER LEVELS AT ALL, BUT GIVEN
THE STARTLING LEVELS OF LEAD IN
CHILD CARE CENTERS, WE CAN
SAFELY ASSUME THAT THOSE IN
HOMES ALSO HAVE WARM WATER LEVEL
LEAD LEVELS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN
OUR CHILD CARE CENTERS. THE BEST
APPROACH TO DEAL WITH THIS IS A
FILTER FIRST APPROACH. FIRST.
FOR THESE REASONS, AB 2671
REQUIRES LICENSED FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES THAT SERVE CHILDREN
WITH WATER OR FOOD PREPARED WITH
WATER THAT HAS BEEN FILTERED
USING A POINT OF USE WATER
FILTRATION DEVICE AND REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES AND CONSULTATION WITH
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD TO ADOPT
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL.
WORKING WITH THE HUMAN SERVICES
AND THIS COMMITTEE, WE AMENDED
THE BILL TO ADD PROTECTIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT, WHICH INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING. IF A CHILD CARE
PROVIDER IS FOUND TO BE
NON-COMPLIANT, DSS WOULD ISSUE A
LETTER OF VIOLATION TO THE
PROVIDER, WHICH WOULD HAVE FIVE
BUSINESS DAYS TO DEMONSTRATE A
FILTER HAD BEEN INSTALLED. IF A
PROVIDER HAS FAILED TO USE OR
MAINTAIN A FILTRATION DEVICE, A
PROVIDER WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE
PROOF WITHIN 210 DAYS.
DOCUMENTING THE USE AND
MAINTENANCE OF THIS FILTRATION
DEVICE. IF A PROVIDER DOES NOT
MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, THEY THEN
MUST TEST THEIR DRINKING WATER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LEAD
LEVELS ARE BELOW FIVE PARTS PER
BILLION. PARENTS WOULD THEN BE
NOTIFIED OF THIS REQUIREMENT TO
TEST AS WELL. AND IF THE TEST
SHOWS LEAD LEVELS ABOVE FIVE
PARTS PER BILLION, THE CHILD
CARE PROVIDER WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF
WATER LIKE BOTTLED WATER. OUR
GOAL FOR THIS BILL IS NOT TO
CREATE BURDENSOME PROCESS FOR
PROVIDERS OR HARSH PENALTIES. WE
SIMPLY WANT THE WATER THAT IS
BEING CONSUMED BY OUR CHILDREN
TO BE SAFE. DSS WILL BE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE A LIST OF WATER
FILTRATION DEVICES THAT MEET THE
REQUIREMENT OF THIS BILL TO HELP
WITH COMPLIANCE. I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR FOR
ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE
DONE WITH MY STAFF ON THIS BILL
AND WE WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. AND TODAY WITH ME
ARE THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
JEAN ENGSTROM, ON BEHALF OF
CALPIRG AND ANNA CHICO CORNELL,
A NURSE AND PROGRAM MANAGER AT
STANFORD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
GARCIA AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
ANNA CHICO CORNELL. I'M A
REGISTERED NURSE AT STANFORD
HEALTH CARE. I'M ALSO A MOM OF
TWO. I'M ALSO A VETERAN OF THE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. AND I'M
A MEMBER OF THE ALLIANCE OF
NURSES FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS
AND THE CALIFORNIA NURSES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
JUSTICE. ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE
MY OWN ACROSS THE BOARD. THE EPA
, CDC, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS, AND THE WORLD HEALTH
ORGANIZATION ALL AGREED THAT
THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF LEAD
FOR OUR CHILDREN. INFANTS AND
CHILDREN ARE ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE TO LEAD BECAUSE THE
PHYSICAL AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS
OF LEAD OCCUR AT LOWER EXPOSURE
LEVELS IN CHILDREN THAN IN
ADULTS, A DOSE OF LEAD THAT
WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON YOU
OR I BECAUSE WE'RE ADULTS, CAN
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON A
CHILD. IN CHILDREN, LOW LEVELS
OF EXPOSURE HAVE BEEN LINKED TO
DAMAGE TO THE CENTRAL AND
PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM,
SLOWED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL
DELAYS. LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL
PROBLEMS, IMPAIRED HEARING AND
SPEECH, INATTENTION,
HYPERACTIVITY AND IRRITABILITY,
AS WELL AS IMPAIRED FORMATION
AND FUNCTION OF BLOOD CELLS.
WHILE IN RARE CASES INGESTION OF
LEAD CAN CAUSE SEIZURES, COMA,
AND EVEN DEATH. WITH THE
ALARMING IMPACT LEAD HAS TO OUR
CHILDREN'S HEALTH, IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE SUPPORT AB
2671. THIS REQUIRES FAMILY HOME
DAYCARE FACILITIES TO USE
CERTIFIED FILTERS TO REMOVE LEAD
FROM DRINKING AND COOKING WATER.
AS PART OF THEIR LICENSING,
HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
THIS ENSURES THAT ALL FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES PRIORITIZE PROVIDING
SAFE AND CLEAN DRINKING WATER
FOR CHILDREN. OFFERING A SWIFT
AND COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO
SAFEGUARDING THEIR HEALTH. WE
ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT AB 2671.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
EVENING. MY NAME IS CHEN
ENGSTROM. I'M THE STATE DIRECTOR
FOR CALPIRG. CALPIRG IS A
STATEWIDE PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP
THAT WORKS TO PROTECT OUR PUBLIC
HEALTH AND DEFEND CONSUMERS. AND
WE'RE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR AB
2671, WHICH WILL ENSURE FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES PROVIDE LEAD SAFE
DRINKING WATER TO KIDS. AS
YOU'VE HEARD, LEAD IS HIGHLY
TOXIC AND EVEN LOW LEVELS OF
LEAD CAN CAUSE PERMANENT DAMAGE
TO OUR CHILDREN. CALIFORNIA HAS
ALREADY TAKEN ACTION TO ADDRESS
LEAD CONTAMINATION IN SCHOOLS
AND CHILD CARE CENTERS, BUT A
GLARING GAP REMAINS IN FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES, WHICH ARE EXEMPT
FROM PREVIOUS LEGISLATION TO
ADDRESS LEAD IN CHILD CARE
CENTERS, WITH AN ESTIMATED
28,000 LICENSED FAMILY DAY CARE
HOMES ACROSS THE STATE,
CALIFORNIA IS CURRENTLY LEAVING
A LOT OF CHILDREN, INCLUDING
INFANTS AND TODDLERS, WITHOUT
ASSURED ACCESS TO CLEAN, SAFE
DRINKING WATER. AB 2671 WILL
REQUIRE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
FACILITIES AS PART OF THEIR
LICENSING, HEALTH AND SAFETY
CONDITIONS TO FILTER DRINKING
AND COOKING WATER WITH FILTERS
CERTIFIED TO REMOVE LEAD,
REQUIRING FILTERS AND ALL FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES IS THE FASTEST
AND MOST AFFORDABLE WAY TO GET
KIDS ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING
WATER. WHILE THERE, RATHER THAN
WAITING AROUND FOR MORE TESTING
TO SHOW US THAT KIDS HAVE BEEN
DRINKING LEAD AND ONLY FIXING
FAUCETS AFTER THE LEAD HAS BEEN
DETECTED ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL,
THIS BILL WILL QUICKLY ENSURE
THAT THE WATER PROVIDED TO
CHILDREN IS FREE OF HIGH LEVELS
OF LEAD. THIS APPROACH ALSO
AVOIDS THE POTENTIAL OF TESTING
MISSING LEAD CONTAMINATION, AS
LEAD CONCENTRATE IONS IN WATER
ARE HIGHLY VARIABLE, SO A LEAD
MAY NOT BE DETECTED ONE DAY BUT
THEN BE DETECTED ANOTHER DAY,
AND FILTERS ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
AT REMOVING LEAD FROM DRINKING
WATER EVEN WITH HIGH LEVELS OF
CONTAMINATION. IN FLINT,
MICHIGAN, AN EPA ANALYSIS
DOCUMENTED THAT CERTIFIED
FILTERS PROVED VERY EFFECTIVE IN
REMOVING LEAD. ORPHALI AB 2671
REDIRECTS FEDERAL FUNDS
CURRENTLY RECEIVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
THAT WERE USED BY THE SOON TO
WRAP UP CHILD CARE TESTING
PROGRAM TO BE USED TO HELP
FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES PAY FOR
THE FILTERS SO TO KEEP OUR KIDS
SAFE, WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANY OTHER
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL? MELISSA
ROMERO, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. REBECCA
MARQUEZ SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL FROM THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS. IF ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, THE CENTER FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CENTER
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIA AND CLEAN EARTH
FOR KIDS. THANK YOU. HELLO,
SUSAN LITTLE, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, ONE
OF THE OTHER CO-SPONSORS OF THIS
BILL. AND I ALSO WANTED TO
ITERATE THE SUPPORT OF THE NORTH
COUNTY EQUITY AND JUSTICE
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ECOSYSTEM
ABILITY PEEPS AND THE NORTH
COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE.
THANK YOU. HI, THANK YOU,
VANESSA FORSYTH. SPEAKING FOR
THESE ORGANIZATIONS, FAMILIES
ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL
TOXICITY, SAFETY, GRANDPARENTS
FOR CLIMATE ACTION, MY FRIEND
SPOKE TO SOME OF THE OTHER ONES
THAT I WAS, BUT THANK YOU.
HELLO. ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ONCE
AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER IN
SUPPORT. AND THANK YOU, THE
MEMBER BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ANY
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. WE ARE
A SUPPORTIVE OF MEN BECAUSE, AS
THE AUTHOR STATED UP TOP, WE
HAVE THE SAME SHARED GOALS AND
WE DON'T WANT THE IMPACT TO BE
OVERLY BURDENSOME. BUT KIMBERLY
ROSENBERGER, ON BEHALF OF CCPA,
IS A UW AND SEIU COLLABORATION.
WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS
WITH THE BILL AS DRAFTED. WE
DON'T THINK CHILDREN SHOULD BE
CONSUMING LEAD. WE WANT TO PUT
ANY KIND OF PROTECTIONS IN PLACE
. BUT THIS IS LARGELY IN PART
DUE TO A PUBLIC FAILING IN THE
BILL, AS DRAFTED DOES NOT HAVE,
RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR FAMILY
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS TO
IMPLEMENT OUTREACH EDUCATION IN
ALL OF THE BURDEN FALLS SQUARELY
ON THE FAMILY CHILD CARE
PROVIDER. WE WILL CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS. WE'RE OPTIMISTIC,
HENCE OUR POSITION THAT WE CAN
FIX THIS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO
GIVE OUR FAMILY CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE SAFE DRINKING WATER. BUT
WE DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE DO IT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T
SHUTTER THE DOORS, WHERE WORKERS
ARE ALREADY MAKING LESS THAN
MINIMUM WAGE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
YES YOU'RE RIGHT. NO, NO, NO
QUANTITY, NO LEVEL OF LEAD IS
EVER ACCEPTABLE, THE IMPACTS OF
LEAD ON CHILDREN CAN. YOU CAN'T
CURE IT. ONCE A CHILD HAS BEEN
EXPOSED TO IT, ALL OF THESE
PROBLEMS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
EXPERIENCE, THEY WILL EXPERIENCE
FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. SO
ANYTHING WE DO TO HELP THEM TO
FROM BEING, EXPOSED TO THIS, WE
HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY.
K¾T, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS TO HAVE
THE, THE, THE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE ALSO. SO FINDING A, A
WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. I
THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT. I KNOW
THERE WAS TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
FEDERAL FUNDING TO BE USED SO
THAT, WE CAN PROVIDE THE, THE,
THE RESOURCES TO, TO TAKE CARE
OF THAT, BUT WITHOUT A DOUBT, WE
DO NEED TO ABSOLUTELY TAKE CARE
AND MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF OUR
CHILDREN ARE EVER EXPOSED TO
LEAD, WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE IF
YOU ARE ACCEPTING COAUTHORS, I'D
LOVE TO BE A COAUTHOR OF THIS.
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE, BEFORE I GIVE YOU
A CHANCE TO CLOSE, I JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THE BILL FORWARD, I DO SHARE
SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE
OPPOSITION WHERE I COULD SEE
THIS BEING POTENTIALLY BE GOOD,
TO NARROW THIS A LITTLE BIT TO
ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I, I DO
LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THE
BILL TODAY. I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING IT FORWARD, WITH THAT,
I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU, WHEN? ONCE AGAIN,
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF. I WANT TO THANK
MY SUPPORTERS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SERVICE, BUT ALSO FOR
COMING TODAY. AND THANK YOU ALL
SO MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH
THE BILL, YOU KNOW, OUR CHILDREN
ARE OUR FUTURE. THEY ARE THE
MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS OF OUR
STATE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE
DEFINITELY LIKE I STATED, DO NOT
WANT THIS TO PUT ANYONE OUT OF
BUSINESS. WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO
BE A BARRIER TO ANYONE, BUT ALSO
KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE CANNOT
CONTINUE TO EXPOSE OUR CHILDREN
TO LEAD. ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT
THIS IS A, A, A AN ISSUE AROUND
THE DISPARITY, BECAUSE IF YOU
CAN AFFORD TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO
A MORE EXPENSIVE DAY CARE
SYSTEM, THIS IS ALREADY
SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE DEALT
WITH. THE HOME DAY CARE CENTERS
ARE THE ONES THAT DO NOT HAVE A
REQUIREMENT FOR TESTING, DO NOT
HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO FIX THIS
FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND SO WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION. WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT
REDIRECTING SOME OF THOSE
FEDERAL FUNDS SO THAT THE COST
FOR THE FILTERS WOULD NOT
ACTUALLY COME OUT OF THE POCKETS
OF THOSE WHO WHO HAVE OUR HOME
CHILD CARE CENTERS. BUT WE MUST
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN REGARDLESS
OF WHERE THEY'RE FROM,
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY RECEIVE
THEIR CARE, BECAUSE THEY TRULY
ARE OUR FUTURE. AND SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
A MOTION? DO WE DO. WE'RE ALL
GOOD. OKAY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THANK YOU. ITEM 11 AB 2671
WEBER. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA
HOOVER. HIGH. HOOVER. AI CONLEY.
CONLEY I MCKINLEY. PAPIN I PAPIN
I REYES REYES I TO WE HAVE POUR
VOTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOW I BELIEVE YOU ARE NEXT. AND
YOU ARE PRESENTING. AB 2933,
PLEASE GO AHEAD WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL 2933, WHICH IS A STUDY BILL
ON WATER CONSERVATION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR A VOTE. I
HAVE MR. PERRY HERE TO ALSO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MARK OPREA. AND
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF FOUR OF
THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS THIS
MEASURE ALARM.COM ALERTS LAB
SENSOR INDUSTRIES AND WINNT
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWE. THIS MEASURE SETS
IN MOTION A PROCESS THAT WILL
ANNUALLY SAVE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OVER 275,000 ACRE
FEET OF WATER, ENOUGH WATER TO
SUPPLY HOUSEHOLD WATER NEEDS FOR
1.9 MILLION CALIFORNIANS.
MALFUNCTIONING WATER DEVICES AND
PLUMBING LEAKS GENERATE
SIGNIFICANT WATER LOSSES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, AND
FINDING LEAKS IN MULTIFAMILY
PROPERTIES, IN PARTICULAR
DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE HIGH
VOLUME OF TOILET DEVICES.
TOILETS ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
GENERATORS OF WASTED WATER
BECAUSE THEY MALFUNCTION
FREQUENTLY, RESULTING IN 300
GALLONS PER DAY FOR SLOW LEAKS
AND OVER 2000 GALLONS PER DAY
FOR A STUCK OR BROKEN VALVE. THE
MOST RECENT DATA SHOWS THAT AT
ANY GIVEN TIME, 5.5% OF TOILETS
MALFUNCTION. 3.6% IN A STUCK
CONDITION AND 1.9% IN A SLOW
LEAK CONDITION. MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA, WITH TEN
UNITS OR LARGER, ACCOUNTS FOR
17.1% OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
INVENTORY AND AN ESTIMATED 5.1
MILLION TOILETS. I'D LIKE TO
ILLUSTRATE HOW SIMPLE THESE
DEVICES ARE. THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE CONNECTED BETWEEN
THE WATER SOURCE AND THE BOTTOM
OF THE TOILET. A POINT OF USE
WATER LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM CAN
BE ATTACHED TO A TOILET AND USES
REMOTE DATA GATHERING AND REAL
TIME ANALYSIS TO DETECT WATER
WASTE AND IDENTIFY THE POINT OF
FAILURE. IT PRESUMES. EXCUSE ME.
ITS PURPOSE IS TO QUICKLY AND
PRECISELY LOCATE FAULTY FIXTURES
AND PLUMBING LEAKS AND ALERT THE
LANDLORD SO REPAIRS CAN BE MADE.
THE COST OF TO PROPERTY OWNERS
TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN SUCH
POINT OF USE. WATER LEAK
DETECTION SYSTEM OR DEVICES IS
RECAPTURED IN LESS THAN A YEAR.
THE AVERAGE WATER SAVINGS OF
OVER 17,000 GALLONS PER TOILET
WILL AMOUNT TO OVER $300 OF
ANNUAL SAVINGS PER TOILET, AND
THAT IS BASED UPON A COST OF
LESS THAN $0.02 PER GALLON OF
WATER, EFFECTIVELY, THE PROPERTY
OWNER WILL GENERATE A POSITIVE
RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT IN
LESS THAN A YEAR. THIS IS A
POSITIVE FISCAL IMPACT AND IS
PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT TO LOW
INCOME PROPERTIES. AGAIN, I WANT
TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE
FOR INTRODUCING THIS MEASURE AND
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THOSE
WISHING TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. OKAY. SEEING NO
ONE, THOSE WISHING TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD
THERE. BRING THE MATTER BACK TO
THE DÍAS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
WHEN WE HEARD THIS BILL IN,
HOUSING, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE
A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
COST. NOW, THE APPARATUS IS
ABOUT $200. THE AVERAGE COST FOR
DEVICES LIKE THIS IS $250 OVER A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD. SO IT'S THE
COST OF THE EQUIPMENT ALONG WITH
FIVE YEARS OF MONITORING, SO
THAT THESE DEVICES CONNECT TO
THE TOILET AND THEN COMMUNICATE
WITH THE COMMUNICATION CHIP TO
THE TO THE LANDLORD OR THE
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT. SO
THAT'S ON AVERAGE ABOUT FOUR
BUCKS A TOILET PER MONTH. THE
LANDLORD HAS TO PUT OUT, WHAT'S
THE COST OF THE APPARATUS
ITSELF? I DON'T KNOW THAT I
DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT. I
JUST KNOW THAT. IN OTHER WORDS,
WHAT IT IS THAT THEY THESE
COMPANIES ARE TYPICALLY, SELLING
THEM TO. AND, OF COURSE, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THERE'S A VOLUME
DISCOUNT, THEN THAT THAT LOWERS
THAT COST. NOW, THAT WAS ONE OF
THE CONCERNS IS THE, THE COST OF
THE APPARATUS, AND COMMENTS WERE
MADE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE
WERE SOME AMENDMENTS TAKEN
BEFORE TODAY. I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THAT, SO THE BILL WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED. THE ONLY
ONE. YEAH. MR. MAYBE YOU CAN.
OKAY. SO DOES THE BILL NOW
REQUIRE THE LANDLORDS TO INSTALL
THIS, OR IS THIS A FAMILY
MEMBER? NO. THIS WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. IT IS THE LEGISLATURE'S
EXPRESSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WANT THEM
TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, TO
STUDY IT, TO DETERMINE IF THESE
DEVICES OR OTHERS ARE
EFFICACIOUS IN REDUCING WATER
WASTE, AND IF SO, TO THEN
RECOMMEND POLICY CHANGES,
WHETHER MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY
AS WELL AS THE TIMING. SO THIS
IS NOT A PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARD.
IT IS. AND IT IS ONE THAT I
UNDERSTAND IN TALKING TO THIS
COMMITTEE'S CONSULTING AS WELL
AS THE ASSEMBLY HOUSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE,
THAT THIS IS THE STANDARD BY
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE, INFORMS
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY,
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY SEE THIS
AS AN ISSUE AND AN OPPORTUNITY
AND THEY WANT THEM TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS. VERY GOOD. SO THEY
WILL THEN DETERMINE WHETHER IT
SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY OR WHETHER
IT SHOULD BE, PRESCRIBED.
CORRECT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL MOVE THE
BILL QUESTION. WE HAVE A SECOND
ALREADY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD OKAY.
THE BILL DOES HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION TO DO PASS, TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
I KNOW ONE OF THE COMMENTS I WAS
MADE THAT I THINK IN THE WATER
CODE, THERE'S ALREADY, A PROGRAM
OR DEVICES THAT ARE REFERRED TO
AS THE POINT OF USE SYSTEMS. AND
SO I THINK THERE WAS A
RECOMMENDATION FOR PURPOSES OF
AVOIDING ANY CONFUSION, MAYBE
YOU CAN CALL IT THE LOW LEAK OR
NO LEAK DEVICE. YOU KNOW, JUST,
YOU KNOW, FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING
SURE THAT THERE'S NO, MIX UP
THERE, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND, TO MR. REYES. YES.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
ADDRESS THAT. THAT I DID
MISSPEAK. THE AMENDMENTS DID
PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE,
HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT TO
DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS AS
WELL, TOO, AND ALSO REFLECTING
THE COMMENTS MADE IN HOUSING TO
ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL FISCAL
CONCERNS, ALSO TO SMALL
BUSINESSES AS WELL, SHOULD THIS
BILL MOVE FORWARD, TO CONTINUE
TO COMMIT TO ADDRESSING THOSE
ISSUES AS WELL AS MR. CHAIR'S
COMMENTS AS WELL? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AYE VOTE. YOU LIKE THE
LOW LEAK OR NO LEAK DEVICE? NO
IT'S PRETTY GOOD. PRETTY GOOD.
I'VE HEARD WORSE. WE'LL CALL IT
WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION CALLED
MANY THINGS. ITEM 14 AB 2933
LOW. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND
BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA I
HOOVER. HOOVER. NOT VOTING.
CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE
MACKINAW. MACKINAW I. PAPIN
PAPIN. AYE. REYES. REYES. AYE TO
FIVE. WE HAVE FIVE VOTES. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL KEEP THAT OPEN FOR
THE MEMBERS. THAT ON FILE NUMBER
15, SOME MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN.
THIS BILL DOES ENJOY A Dð PASS.
IT GOES STRAIGHT TO THE ASSEMBLY
FLOOR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL, IF THERE IS A SECOND.
SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND. PLEASE
IT'S A GOOD SIGN WHEN THE CHAIR
IS MOVING YOUR BILL. SO FEELING.
FEELING CONFIDENT, MR. CHAIR. SO
THANK YOU. AND IN LIGHT OF THAT,
I WILL, CONDENSE MY COMMENTS AS
WELL. IN 20, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS IN 2012, AB
685 FORMALLY ESTABLISHED THE
HUMAN RIGHT TO SAFE, CLEAN,
AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
DRINKING WATER FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS TO. DESPITE THE
SENTIMENTS OF THAT LEGISLATION,
THE REMAINS A NUMBER OF ISSUES
THAT PARTICULARLY AFFECT
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES UNDER
EXISTING LAW, PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC NOTICE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF
THE DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINANTS IN
PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SOURCES.
HOWEVER, FOLLOWING DISASTERS
SUCH AS WILDFIRES AND
EARTHQUAKES, DRINKING WATER
SOURCES CAN IMMEDIATELY BECOME
COMPROMISED AND A 24 HOUR NOTICE
IS INSUFFICIENT. AB 3090 AIMS TO
ADDRESS THIS BY AUTHORIZING AND
ENCOURAGING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
WHEN UPDATING THEIR EMERGENCY
RESPONSE PLAN TO INCORPORATE
URGENT NOTIFICATION PRACTICES,
INCLUDING TEXT MESSAGES, EMAIL
OR SOCIAL MEDIA. CALIFORNIANS
HAVE A RIGHT TO SAFE, CLEAN,
AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
DRINKING WATER, AND THEREFORE IT
IS OUR DUTY TO MAKE SURE WE
ENSURE THAT. RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN
AYE VOTE WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS ABRAHAM MENDOZA,
REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER AND MALAYA C, A JD
CANDIDATE FROM THE MCGEORGE
SCHOOL OF LAW. THANK YOU, MR.
MAIENSCHEIN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. ONCE AGAIN, ABRAHAM
MENDOZA, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER, IN 2023,
THE FARM WORKER COMMUNITY OF
PAJARO IN MONTEREY COUNTY WAS
FLOODED AFTER THE ADJACENT LEVEE
WAS BREACHED BY HISTORIC CLIMATE
CHANGE INDUCED RAINFALL. AND
FOLLOWING THIS DISASTER, STATE
AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES WERE ABLE
TO UTILIZE A WIRELESS EMERGENCY
ALERT SYSTEM TO EVACUATE MORE
THAN 3000 COMMUNITY RESIDENTS
FROM THEIR HOMES, AND THESE WERE
TIMELY ALERTS THAT WERE VERY
ESSENTIAL TO GETTING PEOPLE OUT
AND GETTING THEM SAFE. HOWEVER
WHEN THIS SAME COMMUNITY THAT
WAS EVACUATED WENT BACK INTO
THEIR HOMES, THEY WERE
CONFRONTED WITH CONTAMINATION
STEMMING FROM FLOODWATERS
CONTAMINATING THEIR SOURCES OF
THEIR PRIMARY DRINKING WELLS.
AND AS A RESULT, THERE WAS A
DEEP CHALLENGE FROM THE PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEM WHEN IT CAME TO
PROVIDING NOTICE TO THESE
HOUSEHOLDS THAT THEIR WATER WAS
UNSAFE. THEY WERE TRYING TO
ISSUE A DON'T BOIL, DON'T DRINK
ADVISORY, BUT BECAUSE OF JUST
THE ISSUES WITH COMMUNICATION IN
THE NATURAL DISASTER SETTING, IT
WAS A STRUGGLE FOR THE WORD TO
GET OUT THERE. AND THIS WAS
SOMETHING THAT WAS FLAGGED FOR
US IN THE WORK THAT WE WERE
DOING AND LED TO THE GENESIS OF
THIS BILL IDEA. SO THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO AMEND THE
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION
REGULATIONS THAT THE STATE WATER
BOARD HAS TO ALLOW FOR THE
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS TO UTILIZE
THESE OTHER MEANS, LIKE TEXT
MESSAGE ALERTS, LIKE, SOCIAL
MEDIA USAGE, ETC. TO BE ABLE TO
JUST HELP PROVIDE WORD OF THESE
CONTAMINATIONS IN A RESPONSIBLE
AND TIMELY MANNER TO AVOID THE
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF FOLKS
HAVING TO DEAL WITH
CONTAMINATION STEMMING FROM
THESE TYPES OF NATURAL DISASTERS
, WE URGE THE COMMITTEE TO
APPROVE THIS MEASURE. WE FEEL
LIKE IT'S TIMELY, IT'S
PROACTIVE, AND IT'S A GREAT WAY
FOR US TO JUST PRESERVE PUBLIC
HEALTH IN THE FACE OF GREATER
CLIMATE CHANGE INDUCED NATURAL
DISASTERS. I'D LIKE TO PASS IT
TO MALAYA, ONE OF THE STUDENTS
WITH THE MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC POLICY, OR MCGEORGE
SCHOOL OF LAW, AND THEIR WATER
POLICY CLINIC, WHO HELPED TO
SUPPORT US AND DO THE RESEARCH
ON THE LEGWORK FOR THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MALAYA SEA
. I'M A THIRD YEAR LAW STUDENT
AT MCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW. I'M
HERE WITH COMMUNITY WATER CENTER
AS OUR SPONSOR ORGANIZATION AND
WE'RE PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION. MYSELF AND MY TWO
COLLEAGUES BEGAN RESEARCHING
THIS PROPOSAL IN SEPTEMBER OF
2023 AS A PART OF MCGEORGE'S
LEGISLATIVE AID PUBLIC POLICY
CLINIC. COLLECTIVELY, WE WERE
ABLE TO IDENTIFY GAPS IN
CONSUMER ALERTS FOR DRINKING
WATER CONTAMINATION IN THE WAKE
OF NATURAL DISASTERS LIKE THE
PARADISE FIRE AND PERAHU VALLEY
FLOODS. AB 3090 IS A COMMON
SENSE MEASURE THAT UPDATES THE
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION PLAN
REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEMS TO ALLOW THEIR CUSTOMERS
TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL
NOTIFICATION METHODS FOR
DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION
ALERTS. THE IDEA IS TO INCREASE
NOTIFICATIONS, REACHING PEOPLE
AND REACHING THEM IN TIME BEFORE
THEY GO TO USE THAT CONTAMINATED
WATER. WE WANT PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEMS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A
PROACTIVE APPROACH TO THE
LINGERING EFFECTS OF WATER
QUALITY ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE,
AFTER THE CAMP FIRE IN PARADISE,
WHICH I'M SURE WE ALL REMEMBER,
WATER SAMPLES TAKEN THERE FOUND
THAT THERE WERE DANGEROUS.
EXCUSE ME? DANGEROUS CHEMICAL
COMPOUNDS, NAMELY BENZENE, WHICH
WAS FOUND AT LEVELS OF 2217
PARTS PER BILLION. AND FOR
CONTEXT, THE FEDERAL LIMIT FOR
BENZENE IN DRINKING WATER IS
FIVE PARTS PER BILLION. AND IN
CALIFORNIA IT IS ONE PART PER
BILLION. IN A SURVEY CONDUCTED
AFTER THE CAMP FIRE BY PURDUE
UNIVERSITY SHOWED THAT LESS THAN
50% OF THE WATER SYSTEM
CUSTOMERS THAT TOOK THE SURVEY
KNEW THAT THE FIRE HAD CAUSED
WATER QUALITY DAMAGE. EFFECTIVE
NOTIFICATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY
ISSUES ARE A PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUE. WE'D LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN FOR
AGREEING TO AUTHOR THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE. THE COMMUNITY
WATER CENTER FOR SPONSORING OUR
RESEARCH PROPOSAL AND URGING I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANYONE WISHING TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. MELISSA
ROMERO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. DANIELLE
DALY, JD CANDIDATE MCGEORGE
SCHOOL OF LAW PUBLIC POLICY
CLINIC IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
M.J. KUSHNER, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND CLEAN
WATER ACTION IN SUPPORT. VANESSA
FORSYTH, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT FOR
FAMILIES ADVOCATING FOR CHEMICAL
TOXICITY, TOXIC SAFETY,
GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION, NORTH
COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE,
INTERFAITH COALITION FOR EARTH
JUSTICE, NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND
JUSTICE, AND CLEAN EARTH FOR
KIDS. BILL ALLIO ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP IN SUPPORT.
THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, THOSE
WISHING TO REGISTER OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL BRING
IT UP TO THE DAIS. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? THERE'S A MOTION AND A
SECOND. SEEING NO QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL THE
QUESTION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
AGAIN. DOES HAVE A Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS, PLEASE. TO THE
FLOOR. TO THE FLOOR. ITEM 15.
YES ITEM 15 AB 390 MAIENSCHEIN.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
FLOOR. GARCIA. GARCIA I HOOVER.
HOOVER I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I PAPIN. PAPIN
I REYES. REYES. I TO. WE HAVE
SIX VOTES. THANK YOU, SOME OF
REYES FILE NUMBER 16. BILL DOES
HAVE A DO PASS TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATION
. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, PRESENT TO YOU AB 3136,
WHICH WILL CODIFY THE BUREAU OF
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
REQUIRE THAT THEY MAINTAIN AT
THEIR CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS,
THE BUREAU IN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY DO,
BUT THEIR MISSION IS TO PROTECT
PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES THAT
ENDURE DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND
PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS. THE
BUREAU HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
TOOLS AVAILABLE TO REACH THEIR
MISSION, AND WHILE THE PAST TWO
ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE SUPPORTED
AND EXPANDED THE BUREAU, THERE
IS NO GUARANTEE THAT A FUTURE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL CONTINUE
THIS WORK. VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. THE PUBLIC HEALTH
OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES SHOULD
NOT BE CONDITIONED ON THE WHIMS
OF A PUBLIC SENTIMENT. CODIFYING
THE EJ BUREAU WILL GIVE OUR
CONSTITUENTS A GUARANTEED STATE
ALLY IN THE FIGHT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS MELISSA
ROMERO WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS. GOOD
EVENING, MELISSA ROMERO WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL, VOTERS
IN SUPPORT OF AB 3136, THE
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
IS ARMED WITH LEGAL TOOLS AND
HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF
COMBATING ENVIRONMENTAL
INJUSTICES SINCE 2018. FROM
SENDING LETTERS TO DEVELOPING
BEST PRACTICES, FILING LAWSUITS,
THE BUREAU HAS ENSURED
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND
PENALIZED ILLEGAL POLLUTION
DISCHARGE. IT'S ALSO CHALLENGED
FEDERAL ACTIONS THAT COMPROMISE
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS. HOWEVER DESPITE
PAST SUPPORT FROM ATTORNEY
GENERALS AND GOVERNORS, THE
FUTURE REMAINS UNCERTAIN. SO AS
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER SAID, THERE
IS NO GUARANTEE THAT FUTURE
ADMINISTRATIONS WILL CONTINUE
PRIORITIZING ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. AND THAT IS WHY AB 3136
IS SO IMPORTANT. BY ESTABLISHING
A CODIFIED STATE ENTITY FOCUSED
ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, WE CAN
ENSURE THAT CALIFORNIANS ALWAYS
HAVE A DEDICATED PARTNER IN THIS
CRITICAL FIGHT. SO WE URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE ON THE BILL TO ALLOW
CALIFORNIA TO CONTINUE TO EMBODY
MORAL CLARITY AND LEADERSHIP BY
STANDING WITH IMPACTED
COMMUNITIES, WITH THE FULL
AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THOSE WISHING TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION, PLEASE. ABRAHAM
MENDOZA ONCE AGAIN ON BEHALF OF
THE COMMUNITY WATER CENTER AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY VANESSA FORSYTH, CLEAN
EARTH FOR KIDS. THANK YOU.
SUPPORT ANYONE ELSE? OKAY ANYONE
WISHING TO REGISTER OPPOSITION
ON THE BILL, PLEASE COME FORWARD
. OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO DÍAS, I'LL MOVE
THE BILL. IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND? OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. DOES HAVE A Dð PASS
RECOMMENDATION TO THE
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE. OKAY
WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION. OKAY.
ITEM 16, AB 3136 REYES. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. GARCIA I
HOOVER. HOOVER. NO. CONLEY.
CONLEY I MCKENNA. MCKENNA I
PAPAN. PAPIN. I REYES. I REYES.
I TO. FIVE ONE OF COURSE. ALL
RIGHTY. YES. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. GO AHEAD AND, PRESENT
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. OKAY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN 2024,
THE GOVERNOR INTRODUCED AS PART
OF HIS BUDGET A PROPOSAL TO
INCREASE THE MILL ASSESSMENT
THAT SUPPORTS DPR GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSALS DESIGNED TO FILL A
STRUCTURAL DEFICIT WITH DPR
FUNDING AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING TO SUPPORT AND ENHANCE
DPR CORE FUNCTIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE GOVERNOR
INCLUDED TRAILER BILL LANGUAGE
TO IMPLEMENT HIS BUDGET PROPOSAL
. I INTRODUCED THIS BILL TO GIVE
THE LEGISLATURE AN OPPORTUNITY
THROUGH THE POLICY COMMITTEE
PROCESS TO HEAR FROM
STAKEHOLDERS AND MAKE FURTHER
ENHANCEMENTS AND REFINEMENTS TO
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO
ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED BY
STAKEHOLDERS AND THE
LEGISLATURE. I'VE YOU THIS BILL
AS AN ONGOING DIALOG TO ENSURE
THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE AND
PROPERLY RESOURCED DPR IN ORDER
TO MORE EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT
ITS MISSION. WE RECEIVED A LOT
OF FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS,
AND I THINK WE ARE IN A PLACE TO
CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS AND MOVE
FORWARD. HERE IS A SUMMARY OF
SOME KEY ISSUES THAT WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING. THE AMOUNT OF THE
MILL FEE ADDED. TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND BOTH
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION PROCESS
AND THE REEVALUATION PROCESS.
THE ROLE OF SPM AND IPM, AND THE
FOCUS OF DPR FUNDED RESEARCH. I
WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
INPUT AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS ON THIS
TOPIC. I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY
ANYONE IN SUPPORT? I HOPE SO, I
FIGURED, YOU KNOW, JOSH IS
SUPPORTING THE BILL. I'M JUST
HERE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS, JANE, SELLING
CALIFORNIANS FOR PESTICIDE
REFORM AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK, WE'RE
TAKING A SUPPORT, IF AMENDED
POSITION. WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL
FOR SEVERAL OF THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN SO FAR. AND WE'VE
SUBMITTED FURTHER AMENDMENTS FOR
THE AUTHOR'S CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. ABBY ALVAREZ. THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS ALIGNED
WITH PAN AND CPR SUPPORTIVE
AMENDED POSITION CALIFORNIA FOOD
AND FARMING NETWORK, CENTRAL
COAST ALLIANCE, UNITED FOR
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
NETWORK, CDIO, AND THE CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. THANK
YOU. MARK WELLER, ON BEHALF OF
SAFE AG, SAFE SCHOOLS, MONTEREY
BAY AND COALITION ADVOCATING FOR
PESTICIDE SAFETY, TULARE COUNTY
AND COALITION ADVOCATE,
ADVOCATING FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY
VENTURA COUNTY, WE SUPPORT, IF
AMENDED, ALIGNED WITH
CALIFORNIA'S PESTICIDE REFORM
AND PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK.
COMMENTS. THANK YOU. VANESSA
FORSYTHE IN SUPPORT WITH
AMENDMENTS CLEANER FOR KIDS,
FACT, FAMILIES ADVOCATING FOR
CHEMICAL TOXIC SAFETY.
GRANDPARENTS FOR ACTION NORTH
COUNTY CLIMATE CHANGE ALLIANCE,
INTERFAITH COALITION, EARTH
JUSTICE AND NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. MICHAEL.
JARED, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY
FARMERS, WE'RE A SUPPORTIVE,
AMENDED, WE WOULD SUPPORT AN
INCREASE IN THE MILL FEE IF IT
INVESTED A GREATER SHARE OF THE
MILL FEE REVENUE AND FARMERS
SERVING ORGANIZATIONS, PROGRAMS
SUCH AS THE BIOLOGICALLY
INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM
PROGRAM. WE ALSO BELIEVE THERE
SHOULD BE A GREATER SHARE OF SPM
RESEARCH TO èC SIRUP. THAT'S
THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM
AT THE UC. AND WE WOULD ALSO
LIKE AN EXPEDITED REGISTRATION
FOR LEASE HAZARDOUS BIOLOGICAL
PEST MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND BILL
ALLIO, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP ALIGNED WITH THE INITIAL
COMMENTS BY JANE SULAN WITH CPR.
THANK YOU. REBECCA MARCUS WITH
THE CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
ALIGNED WITH CPR. AND HANS
COMMENTS. THANK YOU. VANESSA
FORSYTH I FORGOT ONE, ALSO, OH
GOSH, I'M JUST KIND OF LOSING
IT. CALIFORNIA NURSES, FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR
MEMBERS. WE'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS
QUICK. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG
ONE, NICOLE QUINONEZ HERE WITH
THE REPRESENTING THE HOUSEHOLD
AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION. OUR MEMBERS INCLUDE
MANUFACTURERS OF NONAGRICULTURAL
PESTICIDES. SO THESE ARE THINGS
LIKE DISINFECTANTS USED IN HOMES
AND HOSPITALS, PET CARE PRODUCTS
SUCH AS FLEA AND TICK COLLARS,
AND LAWN AND GARDEN PRODUCTS.
THE NON AG PESTICIDE
MANUFACTURERS CONTRIBUTE ROUGHLY
HALF OF THE TOTAL MILL
ASSESSMENT. THAT'S COLLECTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT EACH YEAR. AND
FIRST, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, GARCIA, FOR
INTRODUCING THIS BILL AND
PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
MORE DISCUSSION ON THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED
TRAILER BILL THAN WE WOULD
NORMALLY HAVE THROUGH THE
TRADITIONAL BUDGET PROCESS. SO
THANK YOU, WE DO APPRECIATE SOME
OF THE AMENDMENTS AND THE IDEAS
THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN 2113.
THUS FAR, BUT WE'D JUST LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT SOME ADDITIONAL
PIECES. WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING
FOR. AND THANK JOSH FOR THE
ANALYSIS THAT WAS VERY THOROUGH
AND REALLY HIGHLIGHTED THOSE. SO
THANK YOU, WE HAVE REALLY BEEN
PUSHING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THE
REGISTRATION PROCESS. THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CAME UP
IN THE VERY FIRST BILL THAT WE
HEARD TODAY. SO FOR THOSE THAT
WERE HERE, AND IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO HAVE TIME FRAMES,
IN OUR OPINION, ON THOSE
REGISTRATIONS TO GET TO WHAT WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS MAKING
SURE THOSE SAFER, MORE
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS ARE
ACTUALLY COMING TO MARKET, AS
WE'RE FACING MORE AND MORE BANS
ON THE TRADITIONAL PRODUCTS,
TIME FRAMES, TO GET PRODUCTS
APPROVED BY TBR HAVE CONTINUE
INCREASED OVER THE YEARS. SINCE
2018, THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED HAS
DECREASED, AND THE AMOUNT OF
TIME IT HAS TAKEN THEM FOR TO
APPROVE THOSE APPLICATIONS HAS
INCREASED, JUST LAST WEEK,
ACTUALLY, DPR ANNOUNCED THEIR
PROPOSED REGISTRATION FEE
INCREASE, WHICH WOULD RAISE AN
ADDITIONAL $11 MILLION A YEAR
UNDER EMERGENCY REGULATORY
AUTHORITY THAT THEY HAVE. AND
THAT IS ON TOP OF THE $25
MILLION MIL INCREASE THAT THEY
ARE PROPOSING IN THEIR TRAILER
BILL. DPR IS NOT PROPOSING ANY
STATUTORY ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES IN THEIR PROPOSAL AND
HAS JUST SAID THAT IT'S THEIR
GOAL TO DECREASE THE BACKLOG OF
REGISTRATION THAT THEY CURRENTLY
HAVE AND TO START NEW
APPLICATIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
RECEIPT, THAT SEEMS LIKE FOR,
YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS
WE WOULD EXPECT WITH THAT
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RESOURCES,
WE ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
OF THE $11 MILLION INCREASE
THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT IS PAID
FOR BY ABOUT 1500 REGISTRANTS,
AND THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE 20
MILLION ABOUT THAT THEY COLLECT
TODAY, ON IN TERMS OF THE MILL
INCREASE OF 25 MILLION AND ALL
THE MILL THAT'S COLLECTED TODAY,
WHICH IS ABOUT $100 MILLION,
THAT'S 2200 ENTITIES. AND THERE
IS SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP BETWEEN
THOSE TWO BUCKETS. SO I JUST
MENTIONED THAT THAT IT'S MOSTLY
THE SAME GROUP OF PLAYERS THAT
ARE PAYING THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET, FOR
THESE REASONS, WE BELIEVE THAT A
MAXIMUM CAP ON REGISTRATION FEES
SHOULD BE SET IN STATUTE,
SIMILAR TO HOW THE MILL WOULD BE
SET AND ONLY ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT TO GO UP TO THAT
MAXIMUM, FEE LEVEL. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO OUR MEMBERS THAT
THE DEPARTMENT IS WELL RESOURCED
SO THEY CAN CARRY OUT THEIR
DUTIES, BUT WITH ADDITIONAL
FUNDING, IT IS ONLY FAIR TO
INCREASE THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
AND WE BELIEVE TIMELINES WILL
SERVE AN IMPORTANT
ACCOUNTABILITY FUNCTION, THERE
AND THEN I WOULD JUST ALSO NOTE
THAT WE DON'T OBJECT TO THE
MANDATES IN THE 2113 FOR DPR TO
INITIATE FIVE EVALUATIONS EACH
YEAR BEGINNING IN 2027. HOWEVER,
WE DO BELIEVE IT WILL TAKE
RESOURCES AWAY FROM
REGISTRATION. A LOT OF THOSE
POSITIONS WORK ON BOTH, AND SO
WITHOUT A SIMILAR REGULATORY
GUARANTEE OR STATUTORY GUARANTEE
ON THE REGISTRATION SIDE, WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THESE TIMELINES
MAY NOT IMPROVE BECAUSE WE'RE
ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
BUCKET OF RESOURCES, FINALLY,
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WE
ALSO ASSOCIATE OUR COMMENTS THAT
WILL BE MADE BY TAYLOR MOTION
RELATED TO THE MILL
SPECIFICALLY. AND AGAIN, JUST
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS AGAIN,
TAYLOR, MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA FARMERS
AND RANCHERS, WE'D LIKE TO
EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS WITH 2113,
AND AS WAS SAID, WE REALLY
APPRECIATE MR. GARCIA'S
OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US A CHANCE
TO HAVE A ROBUST POLICY DEBATE
ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF THE
TRAILER BILL AND THEN SOME OF
THE NEW PROVISIONS THAT ARE
INCLUDED ON THE ISSUE, AND ALSO,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK, THE
THOROUGH ANALYSIS AND BEING OPEN
TO HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH US.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL,
I'D LIKE TO ECHO MR. GARCIA'S
COMMENTS AND NICOLE'S COMMENTS
THAT AGRICULTURE WANTS A
PROPERLY RESOURCED DPR. IT'S NOT
IN OUR OWN INTERESTS, INCLUDING,
OUR OWN ON THAT WORK OF
REGISTRATION, REEVALUATION AND
ENFORCEMENT BE UN OR
UNDERFUNDED. HOWEVER, 2113 AND
THE TRAILER BILL FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE LACKS TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES WE
BELIEVE SHOULD BE OBLIGATORY
WHEN PROVIDING SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDS TO A
DEPARTMENT, THOUGH WE HAVE
SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL,
I'D LIKE TO DIRECT MY PARTICULAR
COMMENTS ON THE PROVISIONS TO
AMEND THE MILL ASSESSMENT. THE
MILL ASSESSMENT IS A TAX ON ALL
PESTICIDE SALES IN THE STATE,
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, CLEANING
MATERIALS, ANTIMICROBIALS,
WHETHER THEY'RE ORGANIC,
SYNTHETIC, BIOLOGICAL OR THE
LIKE, ON THE AG SIDE, OUR
FARMERS ARE THE ONES ALL
PRODUCTION STYLES THAT PAY THE
TAX AS IT IS THE COST OF GROWING
FOOD. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION, IN A
RECENT REPORT, IDENTIFIED THAT
THESE COSTS ARE INELASTIC. SO
THEY ARE AS THEY INCREASE, IT
DOES NOT DIMINISH THE CAPACITY
AND THE NEED FOR FARMERS TO BUY
THESE PRODUCTS. THE MILL HAS
ALWAYS BEEN SET IN STATUTE, AND
THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALWAYS HAD
OVERSIGHT OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THAT OF THAT ASSESSMENT RATE.
AND WHILE YOU'LL HEAR, FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION ON THAT, THE MILL
ASSESSMENT HASN'T BEEN RAISED IN
20 YEARS, THAT'S ACTUALLY BY
DESIGN. IT'S ASSESSED ON A
DOLLAR BASIS, MEANING IT HAS AN
AUTOMATIC INFLATIONARY
COMPONENT, INCLUDING. AND SINCE
THE LAST ADJUSTMENT, MILL
REVENUE, JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT,
HAS TRIPLED AS HAS THE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. AB 2113
PROPOSES TO INCREASE THE MILL IN
STATUTE FROM 21 TO 29 MILLS. OR
PROVIDE AND PROVIDE THAT WILL
PROVIDE ADDITIONALLY $24 MILLION
OVER THREE YEARS, WHICH WOULD BE
A 25% INCREASE IN THE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. THIS IS
WITHOUT ANY DIRECTION FROM THE
LEGISLATURE ON HOW TO ENSURE NEW
PRODUCTS ARE DELIVERED TO
REPLACE LEGACY ONES THAT NICOLE
SPOKE OF, OR THAT LICENSING BY
PROFESSIONS THAT OUR FARMERS USE
ARE ISSUED ON TIME, THEN IT
WOULD, IF YOU COULD WRAP UP.
SURE. OF COURSE, IT WOULD ALSO
ALLOW DPR TO SET THE MILL FEE
THROUGH EMERGENCY REGULATIONS UP
TO 33.9 MILLS. SO ANOTHER $20
MILLION. SO IN FIVE YEARS, THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL WOULD
AUTHORIZE DPR TO INCREASE THEIR
BUDGET BY 45. I'D LIKE TO REMIND
TWO YEARS AGO, THIS LEGISLATURE
PROVIDED $20 MILLION TO THE
DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF A
STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE, THAT MONEY
IS GONE WITH SLOWER REGISTRATION
TIMES. NO NEW REEVALUATIONS
COMPLETED, AND A DELAY IN
ISSUING LICENSES AND AN EVEN
LARGER STRUCTURAL DEFICIT. I
HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT
CONSIDERING THIS, WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT PROVIDING SUCH A
DRAMATIC INCREASE WITHOUT
GUARDRAILS, SO AT A MINIMUM, WE
ASK THAT THE LEGISLATURE NOT
CEDE THEIR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY
TO THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH A
MILL ABOVE THE THIRD YEAR MILL,
AND THEN WE BELIEVE JUST
GENERALLY THE BEST WAY TO
ADVANCE SAFER, MORE SUSTAINABLE
PEST MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
AND IN AGRICULTURE IS TO HAVE A
DPR THAT PROVIDES ALTERNATIVE TO
FARMERS AND RANCHERS. AND YOU
HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT THAT
TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS
THERE ANY OTHER OPPOSITION THAT
WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? TIM
CIZEK WITH THE AMERICAN
CHEMISTRY COUNCIL. I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR FOR AUTHORING
THIS BILL, AS WELL AS THE WORK.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. AARON NORWOOD, ON
BEHALF OF THE ALMOND ALLIANCE,
ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS OUR THANKS,
BUT WE DO REMAIN OPPOSED.
AMENDED. THANK YOU. DOMINIC,
FROM THE PEST CONTROL OPERATORS
OF CALIFORNIA. WE WILL STIPULATE
OUR THANKS AS WELL. AND WE ARE
OPPOSED. UNLESS AMENDED. JESSE
CUEVAS, ON BEHALF OF THE TRICKLE
GROUP, I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU. CHRIS
REARDON WITH THE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU. WE, WE PLEASE, AGREE
WITH, MISS ROSHAN AND I THINK
THOSE THOSE THOSE VALID POINTS
ABOUT RAISING THE MILL
ASSESSMENT. $33 MILLION, 117
POSITIONS WITH A POTENTIAL TO
RAISE IT TO $54 MILLION, 154
POSITIONS CONCERNS US GREATLY.
AND I AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND SORT
OF HOW WE YOU KNOW, GET TO A
REASONABLE POINT AS IT RELATES
TO THE MILL ASSESSMENT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, BRINGING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. YES. MISS
PEPIN, I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND
GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
A DISCUSSION AS WE TALK ABOUT
INCREASING FEES. I HAVE
SOMETHING ON THE WISH LIST AS
WELL, WHICH WOULD BE THAT, THERE
SHOULD BE SOME REQUIREMENTS OR
PARAMETERS THAT SET, HOW QUICKLY
DPR HAS TO COME UP WITH SAFER
ALTERNATIVES AS PEOPLE BAN
THINGS AND PEOPLE REMAIN IN
LIMBO FOR A LONG TIME. SO I'D
LIKE TO SEE THAT AS WE INCREASE
THEIR BUDGET. YEAH. AND JUST
NOTICE IT LOOKS LIKE ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS AROUND TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. I JUST WANT
TO GET A FLAVOR OF THAT. WHAT
WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED? WHERE DO
YOU SEE THAT GOING? YEAH THANK
YOU. THROUGH THE CHAIR. SORRY.
MEMBER THERE WILL THE HOPE AND
THE PLAN IS THAT WE WILL BE
ONGOING DISCUSSIONS, ON A
VARIETY OF TOPICS. THAT WAS JUST
MENTIONED BY BOTH THE SUPPORT,
IF ADMITTED AND OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED GROUPS AND KIND OF
HIGHLIGHTED ANALYSIS. BUT, THE
BILL IS INCREDIBLY SIMILAR TO
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL,
BUT DIFFERING IN A FEW WAYS TO
TRY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE INPUT OF
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. THE MILL,
THE AMOUNT OF THE MILL
ASSESSMENT, THE LEVEL OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL,
PROPOSES TO PHASE IT IN OVER
THREE YEARS. SO THE AMOUNT OF
EACH YEAR'S INCREASE IS
DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING WE TALK
ABOUT WHERE IT ENDS AND IF
THERE'S A CAP OR IS THERE AN
EXTENSION THAT THE DPR DIRECTOR
IS ALLOWED TO EXTEND IT UP TO,
IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
DISCUSSING, AND WE'VE HEARD A
LOT ABOUT IMPROVING THE
REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT HAS
BEEN A WIDE TOPIC AMONGST ALL
PARTIES, IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT. AS MENTIONED,
GUARDRAILS OR DAYLIGHT ON HOW TO
ENSURE THAT, NOT ONLY THE
REGISTRATION PROCESS IS
EFFICIENT, BUT DEFINITELY ON THE
LOWER RISK, REDUCED RISK
PESTICIDES IS SOMETHING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET PROPOSAL
TALKS ABOUT, BUT THERE ARE NO
STATUTORY UNDERPINNINGS TO HELP
ENSURE THAT THAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENS. AND SO THAT'S
DEFINITELY SOMETHING I THINK A
LOT OF PEOPLE WILL BE TALKING
ABOUT. AND ON THE REEVALUATION
OR CONTINUOUS EVALUATION OF
PESTICIDES, IT'S THE SAME
CONCERN ABOUT A LACK OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.
AND THERE ARE NO TIMELINES OR
DEADLINES FOR THAT PROCESS AS
WELL. SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR. SO
THOSE ARE THE MAIN THINGS THAT
WE'LL BE DISCUSSED. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I JUST
WANTED TO ASK ON THE, PROVISIONS
THAT GIVE THE AUTHORITY OVER TO
DPR TO INCREASE THE, THE TAX IN
THE FUTURE. WHY ARE THOSE
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL AND CAN
YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE GOAL OF THAT AND WHY? WHY,
AS A LEGISLATURE, WE SHOULD BE
GIVING UP THAT AUTHORITY. SO AS
MENTIONED, THE BILL IS MODELED
AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION'S
TRAILER BILL. LANGUAGE AND THEY
STARTED WITH THAT, SO THE
ADMINISTRATION TRAIL BILL
LANGUAGE PHASES IT IN OVER A
THREE YEAR PERIOD. AND THEN
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING,
AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR TO
INCREASE THE FEE UP TO AN AMOUNT
BASED UPON THE ENACTED BUDGET.
THE BILL TAKES A VERY SIMILAR,
TACT, BUT IT, TRY TO RECOGNIZE
THE CONCERNS. SO SOME GROUPS
WANT A CAP, SOME DON'T WANT A
CAP. SO THERE'S A WIDE,
DIFFERENCE THERE. SO INSTEAD OF
STARTING IT IMMEDIATELY, THE
ADMINISTRATION DOES THE BILL,
BASICALLY PAUSES ANY FUTURE
INCREASES FOR ABOUT A YEAR. AND
THEN IN 2028, AUTHORIZES THE
DIRECTOR BASED UPON THE ENACTED
BUDGET. SO IT IS TRYING TO MEET,
ALL THE PARTIES IN A SORT OF
MIDDLE GROUND, SIMILAR TO THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL, BUT
MOVING IT A LITTLE BIT, THERE'S
THIS WILL DEFINITELY BE
SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, FOR
DEFINITELY FURTHER DISCUSSION
CONTINUED DISCUSSION. OKAY, I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST FOR
THE OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, I MY
BIG CONCERN WITH ANY SORT OF
MOVEMENT IN THIS AREA IS THE,
YOU KNOW, THE POSSIBILITY THAT
THESE COSTS GET PASSED ALONG TO
CONSUMERS. DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO
BE A RESULT OF THIS BILL? IF WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CURRENT?
WELL, FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
SIDE, THE FARMERS THAT USE THE
PRODUCTS ARE THE CONSUMERS AND
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PAY THE
AGRICULTURAL PORTION OF THE
MILL. SO, YEAH, I MEAN, ON THE
CONSUMER PRODUCT SIDE AND
PROFESSIONAL SIDE, I THINK YOU
COULD EXPECT THAT TO SOME
EXTENT. BUT IT'S THE SAME SORT
OF SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES THAT YOU
DEAL WITH. YOU KNOW, YOU SELL TO
THE WALMART, YOU CAN'T
INSTANTLY, YOU KNOW, PASS ON THE
INCREASE. IT'S SORT OF
NEGOTIATED. SO BUT YES, I THINK
IT'S FAIR TO SAY OVER TIME IT
WOULD BE OKAY. THE CONSUMERS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'D
LIKE TO CLOSE, I THINK THESE ARE
ONGOING DISCUSSIONS. I INVITE
YOU ALL TO ENGAGE WITH THE
COMMITTEE TEAM WHO HAS BEEN
FACILITATING, THE PROCESS TO THE
BILL THUS FAR, THE IDEA OF
INTRODUCING A BILL IN PARALLEL
WITH THE BUDGET, TRAILER BILL IS
SO THAT WE CAN INFORM THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET TRAILER BILL
PROCESS. AND THE BIGGEST
COMPLAINT WE HEAR RIGHT.
DEPENDING IF YOUR STUFF IS IN
THE BUDGET TRAILER BILL OR NOT.
RIGHT. IF YOUR STUFF'S IN THE
BUDGET TRAILER BILL, YOU'RE GOOD
, RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT, YOU HATE
IT. RIGHT OR YOU SAY THERE
SHOULD BE NO POLICY STUFF IN THE
BUDGET BILL, RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT
YOUR STUFF, THIS HAS BEEN A WAY
THAT WE'VE KIND OF ALLOWED, THE
LEGISLATURE AND WE'VE DONE THIS
ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS
DURING MY TIME IN THE
LEGISLATURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
CAN INFORM THAT PROCESS, THIS IS
THE SAME APPROACH THAT WE'RE
TAKING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO.
AS I SAY, LANDING THIS PLANE,
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION, GIVEN THE
BUDGETARY CIRCUMSTANCE, THE
OVERALL BUDGET SITUATION OF THE
STATE. BUT THIS DEPARTMENT IN
PARTICULAR HAS HAD A MAJOR
CHALLENGE FOR A LONG TIME, AND
THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN ON
DIRECTLY, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS. THANK
YOU. THE CHAIR HAS AN I
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BILL. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION ALL
RIGHT. MOTION. AND A SECOND. ALL
RIGHT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THANK YOU. ITEM TWO AB 2113.
GARCIA, THE MOTION IS Dð PASS,
AND WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA GARCIA I
HOOVER. HOOVER. NO. CONLEY.
CONLEY I MCKINLEY. MCKENNA I
PAPIN. PAPIN. I REYES REYES I TO
THREE, FOUR. FIVE. WE HAVE FIVE
VOTES. OH, THERE HE IS. ALL
RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP
THE ROLL. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO
THE TOP. WE'RE GOING TO START AT
THE TOP FOR THE MEMBERS WHO ARE
JUST ARRIVING OR THOSE THAT NEED
IT ON. YES, MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE. THANK YOU. ITEM ONE IS
AB 1963. FRIEDMAN THE VOTE
STANDS AT THREE ONE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA AYE. PAPINE. PAPINE. AYE
TO. NO. TO NO. THAT COMES TO
FIVE. FIVE. TWO. SO THAT, BILL
IS OUT. YEAH. NEXT. BILL IS AB
TWO, AB 2113. GARCIA WHICH IS
ITEM TWO. WE JUST, PRESENTED
THAT BILL, FIVE ONE IS THE VOTE
COUNT TO, TO AB 2113. ITEM TWO.
GARCIA NO. TO NO. ITEM THREE AB
2201 ADDIS IS. THE VOTE STANDS
AT FOUR ONE. MCKENNA MCKENNA.
AYE TO NO. TO NO. ITEM FOUR AB
2214. BAUER KHN. THE VOTE IS
FOUR ZERO. HOOVER. HOOVER. NO.
REYES YES. REYES. AYE TO NOT
VOTING TO NOT VOTING AYE. ITEM
FIVE AB 2300. WILSON. THE VOTE
STANDS AT THREE ONE. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. TO NOT VOTING. TO NOT
VOTING. THAT BRINGS THE VOTE TO
FIVE ONE. SO THAT ONE'S OUT.
ITEM SIX AB 2316. GABRIEL. THE
VOTE STANDS AT FOUR ZERO.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I TO NO. TO
NO. ITEM SEVEN AB 2365 HANEY.
THE VOTE IS FIVE ZERO. HOOVER.
HOOVER I TO I ITEM EIGHT AB
2454. LEE THE VOTE STANDS AT
THREE ZERO. CONLEY CONNOLLY I
MCKENNA I MACKINNON I TO. TO NOT
VOTING. THAT BRINGS THE VOTE TO
FIVE ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT ITEM
NINE AB 2491. LEE. THE VOTE
STANDS AT FOUR ZERO. HOOVER NO.
HOOVER NO TO NO TO NO. ITEM TEN
AB 2513 PELLERIN. THE VOTE IS
FIVE TWO. EVERYONE VOTED ON THAT
ONE. ITEM 11 THE VOTE IS FOUR
ZERO. GARCIA ITEM 11. SORRY. AB
2671 WEBER. THE VOTE STANDS AT
FOUR ZERO. GARCIA. GARCIA I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I TO NO. TO NO.
ITEM 12 AB 2827 REYES. OKAY,
WELL, WE'RE GOING BACK TO ITEM
11 AB 2671 TO IS NOT VOTING. SO
LET ME, ONE MOMENT. SO THAT'S NO
NO PROBLEM. SIX ZERO. THAT VOTE
STANDS AT SIX ZERO. ITEM 12 AB
2827 REYES. THE VOTE IS FIVE
ZERO. HOOVER. ITEM 12 AB 2827
REYES. THE VOTE STANDS AT FIVE
ZERO. HOOVER I HOOVER I TO NOT
VOTING TO NOT VOTING. ITEM 12 AB
2827 REYES. REYES. WE'LL TAKE A
MOMENT. OH, I I'M SORRY. I
NUMBER 16. YEAH, IT'S THEY'VE
CHANGED IT. ITEM 12 THE VOTE
STANDS AT FIVE ZERO. I'M GOING
TO CALL IT AGAIN. HOOVER ITEM 12
AB 2827 REYES HOOVER. I TO I TO
I. SO THAT VOTE IS UNANIMOUS
SEVEN ZERO. THAT'S ITEM 12 AB
2827 REYES SEVEN ZERO. ITEM 13
AB 2916 FRIEDMAN. THE VOTE
STANDS AT THREE ZERO. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I PAPINE. PAPINE I TO
NO. TO NO. SO THAT'S FIVE ONE.
ITEM 14 AB 2933 LO. THE VOTE IS
AT FIVE ZERO TO NO. I ITEM 15 AB
3090 MANCHIN. THE VOTE STANDS AT
SIX ZERO TO I. ITEM 16 AB 3136
REYES. THE VOTE IS FIVE ONE TO
NOT VOTING. OKAY. CAN YOU REPEAT
NUMBER 11 AGAIN, PLEASE? YES.
ONE MOMENT, WE'RE GOING BACK TO
ITEM 11. ITEM 11 IS AB 2620 2671
WEBER. TO IS CONFIRMING THAT
HE'S NOT VOTING ON AB 2671
WEBER. SO THE VOTE STANDS AT SIX
ZERO. CORRECT? OKAY I WANT TO
THANK ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR HANGING IN THERE.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE WORK OF
ALL OF THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
YOUR HARD WORK AND PREPARING
TODAY'S HEARING. AND I WANT TO
THANK ALL OF THE MEMBERS WHO
PRESENTED FOR THEIR PATIENCE AND
THEIR, WITNESSES WHO
PARTICIPATED FOR ADHERING TO THE
RULES. THANK YOU. AND I THINK
WE'RE ADJOURNED NOW, 6 P.M, 601.
THANK YOU